Tags

Paul Tompkins and Robert R. Leonhard

“The secret of all victory lies in the organization of the non-obvious.”

–Marcus Aurelius

The post-Cold War, post-modern world has challenged the paradigm of Western great powers that has dominated world affairs since the Peace of Westphalia (1648).[i]  Resistance movements targeting established governmental authority have existed since antiquity, but the prominence of internal conflict in world affairs has grown in the 21st century.  Conventional warfare, though still relevant, demonstrated its limits in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and the prevalence of insurgencies, coups, popular uprisings, and revolutions has made it clear that future threats are likely to include a complex brew of irregular conflict that is centered on resistance movements[ii].  Preparing to meet such a challenge requires a disciplined approach to understanding resistance movements.  Studying the nature, evolution, and dynamics of resistance through the lens of science is an effective approach.

The purpose of this white paper is to discuss the next steps in developing a science of resistance.  The National Security Analysis Department of The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory has conducted a sustained research project entitled “Assessing Revolutionary and Insurgent Strategies” (ARIS) for the United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC).  The project has examined numerous case studies and topical analyses related to irregular warfare.  Most recently, we have begun to develop a detailed typology of resistance.  This effort is an important step in shaping a scientific examination of resistance movements.  As a recent paper on the subject observed:

ARIS has since its inception explored past and current revolutions and insurgencies to identify emerging trends, an effort that has revealed two major takeaways: (1) that resistance, which encompasses a broad spectrum of disruptive movement types and manifestations, is an observable phenomenon with complex and dynamic characteristics and concepts, and (2) the study of this phenomenon is spread out across numerous disciplines with little to no structure or common terminology through which one can apply research results outside their disciplinary context… This revealed a need in the research of resistance for the development of a typology of the phenomenon; a structured conceptual organization of the fundamental attributes of resistance, further detailing typologies of the related concepts within each attribute.[iii]

The science of resistance examines the entire phenomenon of popular opposition to governments and/or occupying powers.  The spectrum of activity reaches from peaceful, legal activities on the one hand, to violent, mass upheavals and civil wars on the other.  Consequently, there is an important distinction between resistance movements that are peaceful and those that are militarized on one or both sides.[iv]  Typically, a movement begins as latent—perhaps even clandestine—dissatisfaction.  Indeed, at its root, resistance is born in the human heart.  What makes it a phenomenon that attracts scientific scrutiny rather than simply philosophical consideration is when resisters band together and act.

Resistance science is interested in the embryonic stages of such movements—how resisters organize, plan, recruit, train, and administer themselves.  Equally important is how and when they decide to employ violence.  Military theory and doctrine focus on resistance movements that have grown—through militarization—into insurgencies, terrorism, civil wars, etc., but resistance science is equally interested in what happens before militarization as well as after.  Special Forces and Special Operations Forces become involved with resistance movements both before and after the resisters resort to violence.  Once a resistance movement takes up arms, it steps into the world of military doctrine and practice.

The United States Armed Forces recognize the bifurcation between what doctrine calls “traditional warfare” and “irregular warfare”.  The former is characterized as a violent struggle for domination between nation-states or coalitions and alliances of nation-states.  The assumption that underlies traditional warfare is a sort of social pact:  that the states involved, along with the populations over which they exercise sovereignty, will acquiesce in the military outcome and accept the resultant political decisions.  Indeed, this form of warfare attempts to keep noncombatants out of the fight and instead focuses on defeating enemy armed forces, destroying the opposing state’s ability to generate and deploy armed force, and seizing terrain.  Traditional warfare can be of relatively short duration, and the effects of the war are usually obvious and explicit in the diplomatic agreements that end the conflict.[v]

Irregular warfare, on the other hand, is characterized as a violent struggle among state and non-state actors for legitimacy and influence over the relevant population(s). In irregular warfare, a less powerful adversary seeks to disrupt or negate the military capabilities and advantages of a more powerful military force, which usually serves that nation’s established government.  This type of warfare features adversaries who may be less powerful than their enemies in terms of conventional military force, but they compensate by employing asymmetric approaches, including terror, sabotage, and guerrilla operations to erode the enemy’s power and will to continue the conflict.  Both state and non-state actors can prosecute irregular warfare and can employ these methods at the same time that they use traditional warfare as well. Irregular warfare also typically features the use of diplomacy, politics, information warfare, cyber warfare, and economic conflict.  .The weaker opponent could avoid engaging the superior military forces entirely by attacking nonmilitary targets in order to influence or control the local populace.  Irregular warfare can include spontaneous uprisings against an unpopular government (with or without the support of foreign states or groups), resistance against a foreign occupying power, or a globally-connected, ideologically-based insurgency.[vi]

The most common forms of conflict in the 21st century include both traditional and irregular warfare—an amalgamation referred to as “hybrid warfare”.  Hybrid threats employ both conventional and irregular forces and tactics to prosecute a full-spectrum campaign against an adversary.  A resistance movement might present a hybrid threat by itself, or it might be part of a larger hybrid threat.  In either case, the scientific pursuit to understand both the non-militarized and militarized resistance movement is a critical component to successful policymaking.

Tangential to the question of militarization is the issue of how the United States and her allies relate to a given resistance movement.  Historically, the US has both supported and opposed resistance movements as a part of its foreign policy.  The country’s growth westward pitted the US against indigenous Native American resistance.  The American government supported Filipino revolt against Spain during the Spanish-American War and subsequently opposed that same resistance movement when the United States was awarded possession of the Philippines.  Americans provided support to French and Chinese resistance movements who were fighting occupation by Axis powers during World War II.

During the Cold War, the US became embroiled in Vietnam fighting against Vietcong resistance and their sponsors, the North Vietnamese government.  The Central Intelligence Agency later provided support to Afghan resisters who were fighting Soviet occupation.  After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Americans returned to Afghanistan to replace the offending Taliban regime and soon faced an Afghan resistance movement against the new government.  The decision to support or oppose a resistance movement is not only a momentous political decision for the United States, but it also changes the course of the resistance itself for good or ill.

These methods of categorizing resistance—before and after militarization, before and after US intervention—can be useful for shaping a study of a given conflict.  But the scientific approach to resistance does not “back into the subject matter” by starting with the norm of traditional warfare and then considering resistance and resulting irregular warfare as something exceptional—a deviation from the supposed norm.  Instead, it looks at the phenomenon of resistance as a whole on its own terms.  For intelligence agents or Special Forces soldiers who must operate with or against resistance movements, it is important to understand resistance holistically.  A good doctor, before he operates or prescribes medicine, wants to know the entire medical history of his patient, not simply the latest symptoms that brought the person to his attention.  In a similar way, the science of resistance informs the academic, the policymaker, the practitioner, and the general public concerning the essential anatomy of opposition, and it examines a resistance movement from the cradle to the grave.

Is There a Science of Resistance?

This paper proposes to elevate the study of resistance movements from a scholarly field of interest to a science.  Science is defined variously as “a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws” and “systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.”[vii]  Alternately, a science can be distinguished from its reliance on the “scientific method”, as in this definition of science:  “The investigation of natural phenomena through observation, theoretical explanation, and experimentation, or the knowledge produced by such investigation. Science makes use of the scientific method, which includes the careful observation of natural phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis, the conducting of one or more experiments to test the hypothesis, and the drawing of a conclusion that confirms or modifies the hypothesis.”[viii]

The central characteristic of science is the systematic observation of facts.  Depending on what type of science is in view, the definition can include the development of hypotheses, experimentation to verify or falsify hypotheses, and the formulation of general principles or laws.  But in a more general sense, science is all about organized, disciplined thinking and observation.  The etymology of the term “science” leads back to the Latin term scientia, meaning ‘knowledge’.  Following the roots back further, we find that the word grew from a more basic cognate that described ‘cutting’.  (“Science” is linguistically related to “scissors”, “scythe”, etc.)  The original sense of the word envisioned a scholar cutting something into its component parts for study.  In the modern world, science examines a phenomenon in detail to understand its parts and how they relate to each other and the environment.  In that sense, there is unquestionably a science of resistance.

What about the more procedural definition of science, relating a given science to the use of scientific method? In order for a phenomenon to be studied in the strictest view of the scientific method, it must be observable, controllable, and repeatable.  Likewise, the hypotheses being tested must be falsifiable—i.e., it must be possible, through experimentation, to prove a hypothesis wrong.[ix]  From this more exacting perspective, it is more difficult to develop a science of resistance.  A resistance movement could be observable (at least in some of its aspects), and hypotheses concerning the dynamics and causality of resistance might thus be proved false.  But since the phenomenon of resistance is human and societal rather than strictly physical, it is difficult to control or repeat the process.  We can partially compensate for this, however, through the use of behavioral psychology experiments, statistical analysis, simulation and comparative historical analysis.  Simulation—through the use of war games, computer models, etc.—can seek to replicate resistance movements, allowing researchers to test various hypotheses.  Likewise, we have at our disposal thousands of years of recorded history from which we can draw out examples of resistance movements for study.  But there are limitations to both simulation and historical study that can threaten the viability of hypothesizing.

Defining a Science of Resistance

Modern sciences are divided into “natural sciences” that study the physical world, and “social sciences” that study people and societies.  The former include physics, cosmology, chemistry, and geology, for example—sciences that lend themselves to direct empirical observation and exacting mathematical analysis.  Social sciences include economics, political science, and sociology.  They also overlap academic studies in the humanities, including anthropology, history, archaeology, and linguistics, for example.  The science of resistance falls into the category of a social science, and it dips into all the other social sciences in its special study.  Prominent examples of social sciences’ contributions are: social movement theory from sociology, conflict and civil war scholarship from political science and studies of ethnic and cultural drivers of conflict from anthropology.

The sciences are also divided by purpose.  “Pure” science aims at simply understanding phenomena in the world around us.  “Applied” science seeks to solve problems and develop solutions.  The science of resistance includes both pure and applied science.  It is pure science in that we study history and observe resistance movements so as to understand them.  It is applied science in the sense that we use our observations and conclusions to assist in the development of policy, strategy, operational art, and tactics.  But a key distinction must be made clear:  the science of resistance studies the phenomenon of non-state agents opposing state structures. In the future this conflict will likely include groups as diverse as drug-lords, religious leaders, nationalist activists, popular revolutionaries, environmental activists, and others exerting themselves for “competitive control” over sprawling urban centers and clashing with government forces.[x] But the science of resistance does not directly address the strategic choice of third party actors to intervene.  That is, the science of resistance may examine the decision of some portion of the population to resist, but it does not directly study the business of counterinsurgency or support to resistance from third party actors.  On the other hand, the science of resistance does contemplate the effects of third party involvement in intrastate conflict, whether supportive or counter to the resistance.

Resistance can be characterized as a purposeful, dynamic combination of social and political processes that obtains various outcomes.  The science of resistance seeks to explain the variation in resistance outcomes, whether win, lose or draw.  In this sense again, the science of resistance is analogous to medicine.  Analysis of resistance, as in medicine, must be built on an exceptional understanding of the resistance organization, or anatomy.  Just as anatomical studies examine the organs and systems that compose a human body, resistance studies examine the components of a resistance movement and their functions.    Likewise, the science of resistance will incorporate external actions and events in order to understand their effect on the outcome of the resistance.

In understanding the place of a science of resistance, we must relate it to another proximate field:  military science.  The latter is already an established science that underlies military training, doctrine, education, and materiel development.  Colleges and universities, including the service academies, teach military science, and it is a discipline that military officers continue to attend to throughout their careers.  (One of the authors of this paper has a Master’s of Military Arts and Sciences degree, for example.)  But the science of resistance is distinguishable from military science in that (1) it looks specifically at the phenomenon of agents opposing structures; and (2) it draws heavily from other social sciences.  Military science deals with the overlapping fields of strategy, operational art, and tactics—i.e., it concerns itself with what to do on the battlefield, theater of operations, or theater of war.  The science of resistance analyses the dynamics of people opposing an authoritative structure—violently or nonviolently—but does not directly contemplate the strategic choice of third parties to intervene.  Likewise, military science will occasionally wander into related fields such as history and economics (particularly when looking at strategy), but the science of resistance is rooted in the social sciences.  Matters of political ideology, religion, economics, finance, and sociology are central to resistance.

In developing the science of resistance, scholars and practitioners must reinforce their efforts by considering both the history and historiography of resistance.  History can provide a rich source of facts, chronology, biographies of key players, and detailed understanding of how a conflict unfolded.  Historiography complements that effort by studying how the history of a given conflict was written.  It examines the background, ideology, allegiance, and bias of authors, enabling the researcher to gain a nuanced and critical understanding of the history.  Additionally, the comparative historical analysis method from sociology and political science can illuminate those characteristics of resistance that are generalizable to other conflicts and those characteristics which are unique to specific cases.  Additionally, this method can provide insight into the causal processes at work in resistance in order to inform the theory of resistance.

One conspicuous characteristic of a well-developed scientific field is a typology—i.e., an organized method of classification and definition that provides exacting descriptions of categories and terminology.  The United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC) partnered with The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHUAPL) in 2014 to develop a typology of resistance.  To create the typology, USASOC brought together representatives from the fields of sociology, history, law, and other social sciences, as well as experts in military doctrine and concepts, special operations, and related fields.  Through several intense cycles of analysis and discussion, the team developed a living typology (i.e., one that will continue to evolve through use, criticism, and study).  The typology features five distinct attributes:  actors, causes, organizations, actions, and environment.

Who is the Community of Interest?

Resistance science is a science for everyone, because it addresses issues that shape and define modern life.  As a science, it will attract and benefit from academic attention.  Historians, sociologists, anthropologists, economists, and many others will both draw from and contribute to the science of resistance.  Because it offers better understanding of how the world works, with an emphasis on existing or potential conflicts, it will serve to educate, inform, and advise policymakers.  It will be an essential tool for agencies, including the military, that must operate with or against a given resistance movement.  Finally, it will be one of the most used tools in the Special Forces soldier’s kitbag.

Benefits of the Science of Resistance

What can we hope for from a science of resistance? A systematic and comprehensive effort to study resistance movements can (1) explain the phenomenon; (2) identify both similarities and differences among various resistance movements; (3) assist the researcher, student, military and civilian official in anticipating the potential course of a resistance movement; (4) inform the development of policy and strategy; and (5) inform the effort to deter or create a resistance movement.

Scientific analysis and critical thinking will grow in importance as the processes of conflict and resistance movements continue to increase in complexity and interconnectedness.  Before a student can master the study of a given movement, or before a military commander can plan an operation related to it, they must understand its fundamental processes and relationships.  In this regard, looks may be deceiving.   A conflict may appear on the surface to be religiously motivated at the state or “macro” level, but may have only superficial ties to matters of faith at the local “micro” level, where the actual locus of conflict is political.  A drug war in an under-governed area of the world may appear to be about market share competition, but the real dynamics may have more to do with inter-tribal conflict.  The science of resistance can strengthen the analysis of both students and officials by in-depth, incisive study that reveals the variation in causation and the determinants of variation in outcomes in resistance.

A science of resistance can assist in the understanding of both similarities and differences among movements and conflicts.  Several influential writers on conflict have commented on the essential differences among conflicts in his writings on guerrilla warfare.  Mao Tse-Tung wrote:

National guerrilla warfare…has employed varying implements as times, peoples, and conditions differ… These differences express the characteristics of different peoples in different periods. Although there is a general similarity in the quality of all these struggles, there are dissimilarities in form[xi]

Clausewitz wrote, in On War:

‘Wars in every period have independent forms and independent conditions, and, therefore, every period must have its independent theory of war.’[xii]

Lenin, in Guerrilla Warfare said:

Under no circumstances does Marxism confine itself to the forms of struggle possible and in existence at the given moment only, recognizing as it does that new forms of struggle, unknown to the participants of the given period, inevitably arise as the given social situation, changes.[xiii]

Thus, the scientific approach would include a disciplined analysis that highlights how various resistance movements are similar, and how they differ.  This effort protects researchers and analysis from intellectual bias and the misapplication of history.

A comprehensive science of resistance can assist practitioners to anticipate how a resistance movement might develop over time.  Scientific analysis is not going to result in prognostication, prophecy, or certain prediction.  But it can alert the student, strategist, or Special Forces commander to potential branches and sequels as an insurgency, coup, non-violent populist movement or other form of resistance unfolds.  For example, analysis of past insurgencies suggests that as a resistance movement succeeds, grows, and progresses toward its initial goals, its radical and exclusive ideology often changes to become more inclusive, more politically flexible, and more oriented toward achieving legitimacy in the eyes of the international community.  This is a pattern that an observer of a modern, embryonic insurgency might anticipate.  Likewise, the history of insurgent movements has led to a general observation that the transition from revolutionary insurgency to governing authority is problematic, often leading to factionalism within the movement.  Again, a contemporary student of a present-day resistance movement can inform his or her studies with this historical insight.

The science of resistance will progress as both a pure and applied science.  In the latter form, we anticipate the resulting analyses and conclusions to inform policy makers, strategists, planners, commanders, interagency officials, special operations and conventional forces, and even nongovernmental organizations and private volunteer organizations operating within a theater that includes a resistance movement.  Sun Tzu observed that the first and most important step in developing a strategy is to understand the enemy and one’s own forces.  The science of resistance seeks to understand, analyze, and educate concerning how a resistance movement is born, grows, evolves, and succeeds or fails.  A broad understanding of the science of resistance frees the commander, planner, or Special Forces soldier  from merely reacting to events and allows them to  plan and execute wise and effective courses of action that address the resistance according to its real dynamics.

One of the recent themes in US special operations is to focus on identifying and addressing problems well in advance of armed conflict or military intervention.  This focus is sometimes called “left of phase zero”[xiv]—activities and planning that occurs well in advance of any potential conflict.  The science of resistance can be of incalculable benefit in this regard as policy makers and commanders seek to deter, redirect, or encourage a resistance movement.  Modern science laid to rest the medieval notion that rats spontaneously generated from within piles of garbage, and so contributed to the business of cleaning up cities and preventing the spread of disease.  In a similar way, a scientific approach to studying resistance can get beyond propaganda, cultural bias, and staid assumptions in an effort determine causality and the attendant forces that impel and direct agents of resistance.

Another benefit of a scientific approach to any subject is the resulting ability to transcend from the obvious to the non-obvious.  Close analysis of living cells led to biologists’ realization that the cell was not simply a tiny piece of protoplasm, but rather a complex, highly organized unit comprised of separate and diverse sub-elements.  Likewise, resistance science gets beyond generalizations and looks to understanding the details.  For example, popular media and governmental officials may refer to the jihadist insurgency that some call the “Islamic State in Syria and Iraq” (ISIS) as if it is a monolithic, centrally organized unit.  In reality, it is composed of many sub-groups and factions whose leadership, objectives, and methods are sometimes in conflict.  Thus, the science of resistance offers the ability to dissect a given phenomenon into its component parts and examines each one in detail.

What the Science of Resistance Does Not Do

The science of resistance, like all social sciences, is probabilistic and refrains from the promulgation of inflexible prescriptions for action.  It’s about understanding patterns of behavior and their root causes, not presuming to derive infallible laws.  We recognize that social sciences do not follow Newtonian formulas or lend themselves to exacting or unchanging conclusions.  Statistical analysis informs but does not replace the science of resistance.  It is a science that is multidisciplinary by its very nature, and it calls for a spectrum of effort that ranges from detailed mathematical analysis to thoughtful theoretical development to philosophical reflection.

Likewise, the science of resistance seeks to generalize resistance for analytical clarity, but not to over-simplify.  In this regard, there is both an art and science, and they are related to each other.  Just as the ancient etymology of “science” has to do with cutting something into its fundamental parts, so also the word “art” derived from the idea of putting things together.  Thus, when we think about the art and science of resistance, we can conceptualize an iterative process of integrating the complementary functions of each:  science cutting the phenomenon into its component pieces for analysis, and art simplifying observations into usable conclusions—all in an ongoing cycle of research and reflection.

The challenge in studying any phenomenon is to balance the art and science.  Endlessly granular analysis that is not applicable to other resistance movements can perhaps inform the researcher concerning the immediate subject, but fail to contribute to the cumulative body of knowledge about resistance.  Eventually the researcher must simplify and generalize conclusions so that others can benefit from the work.  But over-simplifying is also a serious danger.  In his haste to come to conclusions, a student of resistance might fail to analyze properly and thoroughly, and thus come to erroneous conclusions.  The key is for researchers and practitioners to employ both methods in balance.

Finally, the aim of the science of resistance is not the production of inflexible aphorisms, principles, or laws.  Instead, it contributes to the discipline of critical thinking—i.e., examining a problem from all possible angles.  Because the science is multidisciplinary, it considers insurgencies, revolutions, coups, guerrilla warfare, and nonviolent or non-kinetic movements from the perspectives of history, anthropology, sociology, psychology, economics, and so on.  This approach brings the benefit of different—in some cases, radically different—points of view on causality and dynamics.  The ideal resistance scholar is an observer who is able to think critically about the phenomenon.

Conclusion – A Way Ahead

This effort aims to foster the science of resistance as a means to increasing our effectiveness in a number of areas. These include the services and agencies of the government, our international partners as they deal with resistance movements, and the study of the phenomenon as a pure science.  How does the observation and study of a phenomenon grow into a disciplined, recognized science? Such evolution is in some sense spontaneous—the need compels the growth.  But scientific development can also benefit from deliberate organization.  In this regard, how can we best advance the science of resistance?

The most productive sciences have proponent institutions that serve to develop and promulgate scientific inquiry.  Universities, laboratories, and research centers serve to solicit funding and organize studies in productive directions.  Likewise, they serve to popularize interest in the subject matter and attract talented scientists to relevant fields of study.  Finally, institutions can seek to connect scientists and their studies to the rest of the world, giving rise to career fields, advanced degrees, periodicals and books, and useful products for policymakers and others.

Embryonic sciences also benefit from champions—i.e., influential individual proponents who act as visionary leaders to inspire interest and action.  Military and even scientific doctrines and dogma can become confining and intractable.  Government bureaucracy, though useful in the administration of a state, often prove an immovable obstacle to cognitive growth.  Gifted proponents with the requisite political power and influence can propel a critically important subject onto center stage and help to secure real progress in its development.

A glimpse of the optimal outcome can be useful.  What do we want the science of resistance to look like? The most effective expression of it would find colleges within universities that offer it as a major discipline of study.  Both civilian and military universities would offer advanced, post-graduate degrees in the study of resistance.  A wide, multidisciplinary literature would result that observes and seeks to systematize the myriad factors that bear on how a resistance movement begins, grows, operates, and culminates in either success or failure.  Resistance scientists would contribute directly to developments in diplomatic, military, economic, and cultural affairs.  They would fill the role of subject matter experts in Congress and on the National Security Council, on joint military staffs, and in agencies that administer foreign affairs.  Resistance science would be taught at all levels of military training—from entry through advanced schools.

The science of resistance will grow, and as it grows, it will slowly distinguish itself from related fields into a discipline of its own.  The United States government, academic community, intelligence services, and military should take part in that development.  As an expression and logical outgrowth of American ideology and policymaking, the United States should lead the way in founding the science of resistance—the careful study of what is arguably the most urgent and important national security issue of our day.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. Government, U.S. Department of Defense, or U.S. Army Special Operations Command.

End Notes

[i] The Peace of Westphalia refers to a set of treaties that ended the Thirty Years War and the Eighty Years War.  The principles of the agreement included (1) establishment of peace through diplomatic congress; (2) the right of states of self-determination; (3) stability through balance-of-power among states.  Implied in the Peace was that states alone have the legitimate right to employ armed force.

[ii] Max Boot, Invisible Armies, An Epic History of Guerrilla Warfare from Ancient Times to the Present, (New York, NY: Liverlight Publishing Corporation), 2013, 569.

[iii] NSAD/JHUAPL, “Conceptual Typology of Resistance” (Draft) (2015), 10.

[iv] Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan, Why Civil Resistance Works, The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict, (New York: Columbia University Press), 2013.

[v] Joint Publication 1, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States (Washington DC: Department of Defense, 2013), I-6.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science. Accessed 07/23/15.

[viii] The American Heritage Science Dictionary, as quoted in Dictionary.com <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science>.  Accessed 07/23/15.

[ix] LiveScience, “Science and the Scientific Method” http://www.livescience.com/20896-science-scientific-method.html. Accessed 07/23/15.

[x] David Kircullen, Out of the Mountains: the coming age of the urban guerrilla (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).

[xi] Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Vol. IX (1937) <https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1937/guerrilla-warfare/> Accessed 07/23/15.

[xii] Carl von Clausewitz, On War, 1St Edition ed., trans. Michael Howard and Peter Paret (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989), 593.

[xiii] V. I. Lenin, Guerrilla Warfare <https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1906/gw/i.htm#v11pp65-213> Accessed 7 March 2016.

[xiv] This refers to the six phases of joint operational planning (JP 5-0), the first of which is concerning with “shaping” the developing conflict. Phase Zero is sometimes referred to as steady state operations.

 

Advertisements