Talk:Foreign internal defense

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (general topics):
	Military science task force

[edit] Evolution of the Article

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)

[edit] Counter-insurgency

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Focus on doctrine or activities?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)