![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sep. 21st, 2011
On Third World Militaries
Sep. 21st, 2011 03:44 amVia Defense and Freedom Blog
It's "on and off and on again" interesting to me to look at and think about developing countries' (para)military forces. I mean countries such as in West or East Africa, not partially modern countries such as Brazil, India or oil countries.
The typical developing country has few benefits from its military. It's way too often rather a threat to political stability and usually overstretched once an actual armed conflict arises.
Border conflicts and all-out interstate warfare are rather rare. The most typical form of warfare is against an armed insurrection by a minority or against paramilitary forces infiltrating from a neighbouring country at war.
An article about the rebuilding (from scratch!) of the army of civil war-torn Liberia caught my interest a while ago and points in my opinion at the most important aspect: It's all about the personnel.
You don't need much equipment for a typical developing countries' military, especially not heavy equipment. Some cheap NORINCO small arms, mortars and RPGs plus a few patrol boats, some trucks and pickups, tents, some fatigues and boots plus a useful radio equipment are about all that it takes.
All else is a question of personnel (competence and motivation).
First of all, the personnel should not have a murderous (civil) war background or be suspected of corruption.
Second, it should be properly trained, properly cared for and loyal to the law.
Third, it shouldn't be some conscript force but rather a cadre force in order to enable a quick force expansion in times of crisis.
I would begin by setting up an academy for gendarmerie training (half year basic gendarmerie course). Indeed, I wouldn't set up a military at all, but only a gendarmerie (semi-police, semi-military institution).
This gendarmerie would be the only representative of the central government's privilege of the use of force.
The other police institutions could be locally elected sheriffs, and of course this aims at empowering the populace to get rid of corrupt local police through elections.
Parliament and government institutions can run their own compound security service and high-ranking officials can get a driver-bodyguard - but these would be restricted to handguns and a purely defensive employment of the same.
The gendarmerie would
(1) enforce lawfulness of local police forces (investigation and arrest, protecting local elections)
(2) guard the borders, serve as customs agency
(3) guard wildlife sanctuaries
(4) control resource usage (detect and investigate illegal wood harvesting, fishing, mining, pollution etc)
(5) prepare as cadre force for warfare
(6) serve as coast guard, including search and rescue
(7) provide basic airport policing and investigate illegal flights based on reports of civilian air traffic controllers
(9) serve as national police reserve, for example for securing large public events
(10) run its own academy
(11) guard prisons and watch prisoner labour groups (and as such oversee some construction projects)
(12) accompany anti-corruption officials as enforcers
(13) guard embassies
(14) serve as basic intelligence agency for observation of armed forces in neighbouring countries
(15) serve as basic counter-intelligence agency, mostly for providing basic security for critical government institutions (foreign ministry, ministry of gendarmerie, head of government office)
The seeming jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none approach is probably necessary to give the forces a good utility in peacetime. It helps furthermore to keep the gendarmerie fragmented and with near-permanent personnel turnover even in leadership positions: These would be very difficult conditions for a coup d'état planner.
The personnel would rotate irregularly, leaving enough experienced personnel in one function, but infuse new personnel as well. This near-constant movement of personnel (average duration on a specialty about 1-3 years in a row after 1 month training) should make it more difficult for individual units to get on a wrong track.
The defence itself could be based on a motorised infantry + local guided militia approach. Small teams of gendarmerie would train and lead village or local militias while gendarmerie with quickly trained enlisted volunteers would strive for a quick end in an interstate conflict through small unit and unit competence and small formation manoeuvre. Meanwhile, other quickly trained enlisted volunteers would reinforce the gendarmerie in its civilian functions. These volunteers would sign up for a two-year period, possibly extend for one ear each or get accepted into the academy for full gendarmerie training after the first two years. The motivation would come from decent pay and a bonus for later applications for government jobs or for access to higher education. Real gendarms would work for pay that's enough for a family and a pension that's enough for a household of two.
The academy would be the one central piece, and its leadership has to be selected carefully, for the academy leadership is probably the only part of the gendarmerie that would be able to pull off a coup d'état. It would thus be very restricted in terms of available weapons and ammunition. The academy could also serve as the institution's symbol and pride.
I would separate it into basic training, advanced (officer) training and specialisation training - three months, three months and one month respectively.
Developing country military affairs may lack pseudo-sexy fighters, tanks and aircraft carriers - but they add some facets to the topic of personnel. We (in the "West") don't regularly think of a military as a force to be kept in check for it could otherwise attempt a coup d'état, do we?
It's "on and off and on again" interesting to me to look at and think about developing countries' (para)military forces. I mean countries such as in West or East Africa, not partially modern countries such as Brazil, India or oil countries.
The typical developing country has few benefits from its military. It's way too often rather a threat to political stability and usually overstretched once an actual armed conflict arises.
Border conflicts and all-out interstate warfare are rather rare. The most typical form of warfare is against an armed insurrection by a minority or against paramilitary forces infiltrating from a neighbouring country at war.
An article about the rebuilding (from scratch!) of the army of civil war-torn Liberia caught my interest a while ago and points in my opinion at the most important aspect: It's all about the personnel.
You don't need much equipment for a typical developing countries' military, especially not heavy equipment. Some cheap NORINCO small arms, mortars and RPGs plus a few patrol boats, some trucks and pickups, tents, some fatigues and boots plus a useful radio equipment are about all that it takes.
All else is a question of personnel (competence and motivation).
First of all, the personnel should not have a murderous (civil) war background or be suspected of corruption.
Second, it should be properly trained, properly cared for and loyal to the law.
Third, it shouldn't be some conscript force but rather a cadre force in order to enable a quick force expansion in times of crisis.
I would begin by setting up an academy for gendarmerie training (half year basic gendarmerie course). Indeed, I wouldn't set up a military at all, but only a gendarmerie (semi-police, semi-military institution).
This gendarmerie would be the only representative of the central government's privilege of the use of force.
The other police institutions could be locally elected sheriffs, and of course this aims at empowering the populace to get rid of corrupt local police through elections.
Parliament and government institutions can run their own compound security service and high-ranking officials can get a driver-bodyguard - but these would be restricted to handguns and a purely defensive employment of the same.
The gendarmerie would
(1) enforce lawfulness of local police forces (investigation and arrest, protecting local elections)
(2) guard the borders, serve as customs agency
(3) guard wildlife sanctuaries
(4) control resource usage (detect and investigate illegal wood harvesting, fishing, mining, pollution etc)
(5) prepare as cadre force for warfare
(6) serve as coast guard, including search and rescue
(7) provide basic airport policing and investigate illegal flights based on reports of civilian air traffic controllers
(9) serve as national police reserve, for example for securing large public events
(10) run its own academy
(11) guard prisons and watch prisoner labour groups (and as such oversee some construction projects)
(12) accompany anti-corruption officials as enforcers
(13) guard embassies
(14) serve as basic intelligence agency for observation of armed forces in neighbouring countries
(15) serve as basic counter-intelligence agency, mostly for providing basic security for critical government institutions (foreign ministry, ministry of gendarmerie, head of government office)
The seeming jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none approach is probably necessary to give the forces a good utility in peacetime. It helps furthermore to keep the gendarmerie fragmented and with near-permanent personnel turnover even in leadership positions: These would be very difficult conditions for a coup d'état planner.
The personnel would rotate irregularly, leaving enough experienced personnel in one function, but infuse new personnel as well. This near-constant movement of personnel (average duration on a specialty about 1-3 years in a row after 1 month training) should make it more difficult for individual units to get on a wrong track.
The defence itself could be based on a motorised infantry + local guided militia approach. Small teams of gendarmerie would train and lead village or local militias while gendarmerie with quickly trained enlisted volunteers would strive for a quick end in an interstate conflict through small unit and unit competence and small formation manoeuvre. Meanwhile, other quickly trained enlisted volunteers would reinforce the gendarmerie in its civilian functions. These volunteers would sign up for a two-year period, possibly extend for one ear each or get accepted into the academy for full gendarmerie training after the first two years. The motivation would come from decent pay and a bonus for later applications for government jobs or for access to higher education. Real gendarms would work for pay that's enough for a family and a pension that's enough for a household of two.
The academy would be the one central piece, and its leadership has to be selected carefully, for the academy leadership is probably the only part of the gendarmerie that would be able to pull off a coup d'état. It would thus be very restricted in terms of available weapons and ammunition. The academy could also serve as the institution's symbol and pride.
I would separate it into basic training, advanced (officer) training and specialisation training - three months, three months and one month respectively.
Developing country military affairs may lack pseudo-sexy fighters, tanks and aircraft carriers - but they add some facets to the topic of personnel. We (in the "West") don't regularly think of a military as a force to be kept in check for it could otherwise attempt a coup d'état, do we?
"Bredsday is The Fifth Day. Bride is both an ancient Celtic Goddess and a Catholic Saint. She is a Triple Goddess and a Keeper of The Eternal Flame. Poetry is sacred to Her. Saint Brigid’s Day falls on Imbolc, also a 'fire festival'. She is chosen so that we may 'meditate upon The Light, upon The Flame'. She is also connected to Her Celtic Sister Goddess Epona, who comes the next day and Bride's Light can serve as Epona's guide."
"The Fifth Day is not a religious holiday per se, but rather meant to be a day of relaxation and reflection."
Addendum D [Calendar for A New Matriarchy]
"The Fifth Day is not a religious holiday per se, but rather meant to be a day of relaxation and reflection."
Addendum D [Calendar for A New Matriarchy]
~Some days I miss New York. Some days I miss LA, too. But I'm not sure if I could really live for any length of time in either of those places anymore. I've become happily used to the quiet of the High Desert. Even here in the middle of a mobile home park, it is a lot quieter than at my lovely Section 8 one bedroom on 6th Street in Santa Monica, which was the nicest place that was 'just mine' that I've ever had.
I suppose with a substantial amount of money I could 'make do'. I grew up in a five story brownstone on Manhattan's East Side and it was very comfy and pretty quiet, too. Of course, the family owned the whole thing. And Hotel Hell, the Rent's sixteen room house in Beverly Hills was [is] comfy and quiet – except when there was screaming and such.
But I cannot really project that I'll be able to deploy that kind of bread just for myself even if The Temple becomes a Big Deal. The Sisterhood will always have to come first. And I suppose that's okay. I can always visit.
I suppose with a substantial amount of money I could 'make do'. I grew up in a five story brownstone on Manhattan's East Side and it was very comfy and pretty quiet, too. Of course, the family owned the whole thing. And Hotel Hell, the Rent's sixteen room house in Beverly Hills was [is] comfy and quiet – except when there was screaming and such.
But I cannot really project that I'll be able to deploy that kind of bread just for myself even if The Temple becomes a Big Deal. The Sisterhood will always have to come first. And I suppose that's okay. I can always visit.
Life in The Desert
Sep. 21st, 2011 06:29 am~It is presently 62° and 48% humidity. It was up to 98° when I lay down around 3pm. It may have gotten hotter, but I don't know cause I went down hard. Now I'm gonna make a fuckton of chili.
Life in The Desert
Sep. 21st, 2011 03:42 pm~It is presently 97° and 10% humidity. And that's about that...