Wikipedia

Talk:Foreign internal defense

Latest comment: 1 year ago by LamontCranston in topic El Mozote
Learn more about this page

Evolution of the Article

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'd appreciate suggestions. This article has a good deal of material, but is too long.

Thoughts? A separate article on "models of insurgency", and hold FID to history and operations? Although there's lots of US information available, I think I've managed to get a reasonable amount of British and French doctrine into it.

The problem that I have is specific doctrine is US. I think I can generalize a good deal of that to be related to the Kilcullen, McCormick, Eizenstat, and Barnett concepts, but that, of course, will be conceptual. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Counter-insurgency

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

It is a bit difficult to determine from reading the WP:lead section of this article if the topic is related to counter-insurgency. If it is, then it should probably provide a link to that article fairly early on! (sdsds - talk) 05:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

So how about starting the lead with,

A foreign internal defense is a military deployment of forces in a foreign state to defend the established government there against an insurgency.

Is that a concise, accurate and WP:NPOV description? I know it isn't comprehensive, e.g. it doesn't cover "subversion and lawlessness" that aren't part of an insurgency. But perhaps those cases (if any actually exist) could be covered in subsequent sentences.... (sdsds - talk) 23:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Another try at a lead:

Foreign internal defense is a military doctrine describing techniques used to defend the established government of a foreign state against an insurgency. This doctrine has been used by a number of Western militaries to implement the interventionist foreign policies of their governments.

That would work for me, if only there were a better article for the "interventionist" link. (sdsds - talk) 16:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
Does that make it clear that the insurgency can be domestic or external, and state or non-state? (thinking about a better word than interventionist). Take the American Revolution. I think of it as primarily domestic/anticolonialist against the British, with the French supporting the rebels. The British seem to have forgiven the Americans, but they might use different terminology.
Those rebels, however, clearly were trying to form a government that would eventually be part of the international system. The Taliban had a government, but were not especially interested in being part of an international systems. Random warlords in Somalia just want local control. Can we come up with wording that encompasses these, given that the Somalia case also involves nation-building in a place where there simply are no national institutions? For that matter, who is the interventionist in Kosovo? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Focus on doctrine or activities?

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I have tentatively added this article to Category:Military doctrines. Is that reasonable? It seems to focus more on FID doctrine (theory) than activities (praxis). I'm also unclear if the intent is to (eventually) cover historical FID activities or mainly focus on current doctrine? (sdsds - talk) 03:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

There are historical FID activities at the end of the article; perhaps they should move to the beginning. The article does need a direction between theory and practice. I'm still writing the actions.
Looking at the existing article on counterinsurgency, it also seems to be unsure if it deals with theory or practice, but its theoretical aspects are limited and really don't address the more recent conceptual thinking (e.g., by Kilcullen, McCormick, Petraeus, Eizenstat, and Barnett).
This needs more thought, since it may affect more than one article. I've been more active in intelligence articles, where some of the existing ones have been at a more popular than deep level, and there also may be conspiracy theories. This area actually might be a little easier than the CIA-under-the-bed. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm almost wondering if the theoretical part -- and I have additional material to add -- might be more appropriate either for a new article on insurgency and counterinsurgency principles, where the existing counterinsurgency, as well as FID operations, go more to activities. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that makes sense. Though the trouble with any article about doctrine and theory is keeping a distinction between what those who advocate the doctine believe, and what the encyclopedia asserts. In the current lead, for example, the phrases: "Those specialists preferably do not themselves fight..." and, "It is best done by trained HN personnel..." both appear. These are the views of advocates of the doctrine. Is it implicit that the encyclopedia is only reporting these, not making an assertion about their veracity? (sdsds - talk) 15:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, got those references cited. There's nothing much to be done about the problem that very similar language will appear both in the Counterinsurgency and Foreign Internal Defense publications. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nonmilitary Actions in Closing Gaps

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The style and wording of the Nonmilitary Actions in Closing Gaps section, particularly the introduction, do not seem neutral.

Also, there are views out there that justify why military/security lines in a COIN/FID situation take precedence over governance/development. Here's a quote from a paper by Dr. Mark Moyar:

"Whereas population-centric COIN advocates had argued that reconciliation and mobilization of the population required political outreach and economic development rather than the use of force, 3/5 made much greater advances than its predecessors in reconciliation and population mobilization by virtue of greater reliance on force."

So maybe there's a reason why the Department of State's authority in these types of situations has declined over the years. Agsftw (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC) Agsftw (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Foreign internal defense. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Foreign internal defense. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Foreign internal defense. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Foreign internal defense. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

El Mozote

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Returning to the El Mozote massacre, it was duly reported to the American public by Ray Bonner from The New York Times and Anna Guillermoprieto from The Washington Post, however, the U.S. State Department denied the participation of the Salvadoran army in mass murder. ~ this fails to mention how the Reagan administration worked to not only deny any massacre occured but to undermine the credibility of Bonner and Guillermoprieto and ruin their careers to kill the story. LamontCranston (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Foreign_internal_defense&oldid=1217148758"