12.08.2013 Views

Joint Operating Concept (JOC) - GlobalSecurity.org

Joint Operating Concept (JOC) - GlobalSecurity.org

Joint Operating Concept (JOC) - GlobalSecurity.org

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

abuses had the distinctly positive effect of garnering US support as well as the<br />

support of the Salvadorian populace. Ultimately, the insurgency lost its energy<br />

and languished to the point that it was no longer a genuine threat to the<br />

country’s stability.<br />

Examples of Waging Unconventional Warfare:<br />

US-Philippine Resistance to Japanese Occupation (1942 - 1945). US<br />

support to, and in some cases leadership of, irregular resistance to Japanese<br />

forces in the Philippine archipelago was an unqualified success. It stands as a<br />

premier example of what military planners today call operational preparation of<br />

the environment. The Philippine resistance movement, comprised of a number<br />

of groups spread throughout the archipelago but most numerous on the main<br />

island of Luzon, collected and transmitted intelligence on adversary order of<br />

battle, conducted hit-and-run raids against Japanese forces, and provided de<br />

facto government services in a number of villages. The resistance movement<br />

benefited from environmental factors that contributed to the overall success of<br />

the campaign. These factors included the size of the archipelago (almost<br />

115,000 m2 ) spread out over 7,100 islands and the imposing jungle and<br />

mountain terrain on the largest islands. Both factors, as well as the<br />

requirement to maintain lines of communication and supply between garrisons,<br />

severely stretched the occupying Japanese forces. Although the Japanese<br />

initially offered positive or neutral incentives not to resist, such as amnesty to<br />

military stragglers and those under arms, increasing negative measures<br />

(including collective reprisals against villagers for attacks, imprisonment and/or<br />

torture or execution of suspected guerrillas, and seizing crops and livestock)<br />

turned the population against them.<br />

United Nations Partisan Operations in Korea (1951 - 1953). Success and<br />

failure in waging IW can be difficult to judge. In the case of IW conducted during<br />

the Korean War, the evidence seems contradictory. Although UN partisan forces<br />

contributed to allied interdiction efforts in the operational rear areas of North<br />

Korea, the movement nevertheless failed to achieve more widespread strategic IW<br />

success. Most if not all of the preconditions for IW success existed on the<br />

Korean peninsula, but a number of factors inhibited the success of UN partisan<br />

forces. First, the responsibility for UN partisan operations shifted between<br />

different command instruments, neither of which had developed a<br />

comprehensive plan or phasing for IW in the theater. Second (and as a result of<br />

the first factor above), UN partisan forces were used primarily for seaborne raids,<br />

not unlike British commando raids in the Second World War. The purpose of<br />

these raids was to interdict main supply routes, inflict casualties, and boost the<br />

morale of anti-communist instruments in North Korea. Little effort was applied<br />

to establishing sanctuaries and base areas on the peninsula itself or cultivating<br />

the population to support an insurgency. From 1952 onwards, the North<br />

Koreans placed greater emphasis on rear area counter-partisan operations that<br />

limited the mobility and access of UN partisan forces to the North Korean<br />

population. Finally, and most significantly, US advisors to UN partisan forces<br />

Appendix G<br />

G-4

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!