Of the Zimbabwean opposition a commentator once wrote... 'It is in this area of strategising in the face of patent risks where the MDC has appeared to stutter in the past. The MDC’s Achilles Heel has always been an almost infantile innocence in the face of a ruthless and crafty rival. The MDC appears to operate in anticipation of the best outcome but without accounting for the probability the worst possible outcome.
But its approach in dealings with Zanu PF is reflective of the society in which it exists. We are taught that democracy is for good men and women, who believe in peace, use peaceful methods, co-operate and do all the ‘right’ things. We live in a world in which we observe older and mature democracies where democratic values have been inculcated over time. What we are not taught, however, is that even in these older democracies, things were not always that straightforward. Democracy has come a long way and they have had and, in many ways, still have to deal with ruthless and crafty opponents in the Zanu PF mould.
We operate in anticipation of peace, fair-play and togetherness. What we are not taught is that, in fact, there are considerable levels of conflict at all levels of society – family, community, national and indeed international. We overlook the obvious reality that in society there are crafty and ruthless individuals who will employ every tool and method in the book to outdo us in various endeavours. We are taught to abhor conflict and violence but we are not taught to be prepared for the reality in which conflict is, in fact, prevalent. We are, therefore, often unprepared to deal with crafty and ruthless individuals and, indeed, situations of conflict.
This is the same predicament in which the MDC finds itself. It is fighting for democracy using ‘democratic’ means and tactics but is not prepared for the reality presented by the crafty opponent that it faces.'
The meaning is clear, opposition leaders have played politics whilst the OPFOR regime is fighting a variation of the last war. Dangerously, these people are not considering what is happening and relating it to what they are really facing. They are following a defunct political model whilst seeking regime change within a dangerous political environment; ignoring more effective counterinsurgency models for effecting change altogether. After so many years stagnation has set in to our politics of struggle. Activism is now a salaried career, not a calling based on energy and conviction. If the anti OPFOR section of Zimbabwe's politics are guilty of one thing it is that they see ony what they want to see, without consideration for the very different political culture they have now entered into. This failure in openmindedness and lateral thinking is a lesson in how the resistance must not operate. In life, very few things come without a price, and in terms of lives, time, money, energy and committment securing a nations freedom from the grip on entrenched dictatorship is one of the most costly activities imaginable. Thus all resources must be used wisely.
Backed by outside money and intentions Zimbabwe’s opposition have no internal plan, they consider the OPFOR as one man and ignore the group as a whole. Devising a regime change strategy from a wrong series of assessments, they are constantly surprised. They ignore the sage advice of Sun-tzu who said, "What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy." That should always be your starting point--looking outward, but not letting arrogance and insecurity cloud inward critique and assessment.
It is a known fact that from 2005 onwards much valuable time and energy has been wasted entrenching a leadership clique and creating a new cult of personality, rather than fighting the OPFOR.
But its approach in dealings with Zanu PF is reflective of the society in which it exists. We are taught that democracy is for good men and women, who believe in peace, use peaceful methods, co-operate and do all the ‘right’ things. We live in a world in which we observe older and mature democracies where democratic values have been inculcated over time. What we are not taught, however, is that even in these older democracies, things were not always that straightforward. Democracy has come a long way and they have had and, in many ways, still have to deal with ruthless and crafty opponents in the Zanu PF mould.
We operate in anticipation of peace, fair-play and togetherness. What we are not taught is that, in fact, there are considerable levels of conflict at all levels of society – family, community, national and indeed international. We overlook the obvious reality that in society there are crafty and ruthless individuals who will employ every tool and method in the book to outdo us in various endeavours. We are taught to abhor conflict and violence but we are not taught to be prepared for the reality in which conflict is, in fact, prevalent. We are, therefore, often unprepared to deal with crafty and ruthless individuals and, indeed, situations of conflict.
This is the same predicament in which the MDC finds itself. It is fighting for democracy using ‘democratic’ means and tactics but is not prepared for the reality presented by the crafty opponent that it faces.'
The meaning is clear, opposition leaders have played politics whilst the OPFOR regime is fighting a variation of the last war. Dangerously, these people are not considering what is happening and relating it to what they are really facing. They are following a defunct political model whilst seeking regime change within a dangerous political environment; ignoring more effective counterinsurgency models for effecting change altogether. After so many years stagnation has set in to our politics of struggle. Activism is now a salaried career, not a calling based on energy and conviction. If the anti OPFOR section of Zimbabwe's politics are guilty of one thing it is that they see ony what they want to see, without consideration for the very different political culture they have now entered into. This failure in openmindedness and lateral thinking is a lesson in how the resistance must not operate. In life, very few things come without a price, and in terms of lives, time, money, energy and committment securing a nations freedom from the grip on entrenched dictatorship is one of the most costly activities imaginable. Thus all resources must be used wisely.
Backed by outside money and intentions Zimbabwe’s opposition have no internal plan, they consider the OPFOR as one man and ignore the group as a whole. Devising a regime change strategy from a wrong series of assessments, they are constantly surprised. They ignore the sage advice of Sun-tzu who said, "What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy." That should always be your starting point--looking outward, but not letting arrogance and insecurity cloud inward critique and assessment.
It is a known fact that from 2005 onwards much valuable time and energy has been wasted entrenching a leadership clique and creating a new cult of personality, rather than fighting the OPFOR.
'A prince must be a fox... to recognise the traps and a lion to frighten the wolves.'
In war and politics the Machiavellian perspective holds sway. Power is taken by those organized to take it, from those organized to hold onto it. During that journey there will be bloodshed, false declarations, and manipulating of the public. The point of a power struggle against dictatorship is to gain supremacy; one can seem good, so long as one does what is necessary to overthrow the obvious tyranny. At times it wont be easy to defend a political action, but often the means justify the ends and the ends justify the means, all can be backed by sincere motives and intentions. A quite complicated situation must always be tempered by always asking the question --what is really going on?
In the last few years discontent has spread throughout the country. Yet no new ideas have been forged in this period, during which the OPFOR has begun to weaken in power. With greater initiative and without the present terror campaign, Zimbabwean history might have taken a much different path on March 29th. The present terror campaign has broken up opposition momentum and sown the seeds for the introduction of a much greater level of repression, this drama is part of an old OPFOR plan for a one party state agenda; planned from a very long time ago. It has taken them some thirty years but as history shows us State terrorists, usually give alot of time.
The response by the opposition to the OPFOR tyranny is not calibrated to the type of the threat, but rather to the international spectacle, and so ends and means and need and purpose are greatly confused.
The old mistakes and patterns of a history of failure are continuously justified and repeated. No attempt is made to see or counter the OPFOR intentions with alternative structures that are organized purposefully. Time and again the OPFOR are able to use disinformation, feeding the nation and world whatever story they want; without any effective counters, the nature of their opponents are as clear as day to them whilst they themselves seem overly simple or worse a total mystery.
Using a mix of political and military processes gives the OPFOR more strategic options and faster thought paths in acclimatizing to incidents. They murder at will, whereas their opponents have to tiptoe through a self imposed moral minefield. Rifts created among allies and in the public are widened and polarization sets in. Part of the chaos strategy is to exacerbate the divisions into a full blown 'divide and conquer' dynamic in which allies are split apart.
State terrorism is complex and adaptable; it can be used in tandem with other forms of warfare or the legal system. It uses technology and media creating alliances between all kinds of groups including criminal elements that benefit from the terrorist acts of the regime. In looking this complexity is the strategy itself--to stir up and then repress.
In the end we are all in this together and have played into the OPFOR hands for too long, we must break down the reasons for our failure as impersonally as von Clausewitz analyzed the Prussian defeat at the hands of Napoleon. We have a situation that was manageable and now see an orchestrated slide into tremendous insecurity and disorder.
Finding a proper response to the OPFOR regime is a question based upon on first understanding the dynamic nature of how they as a political / military machine operate. The OPFOR are not dim, they are hardened veterans of political and military conflict fighting for what they see is desperate survival against an imagined enemy that in their minds is real. History reveals the various political traps set, the intelligence network, the fear and paranoia they spread to glean an under responsive response or overreaction. The manipulation of opposition peacefulness and impatience and desire for immediate reprisals, the polarization must be studied carefully. All these issues can only be countered effectively if they are recognised and understood as part of the wider OPFOR strategic plan.
To dismantle this oppressive system we must be aware that this is a complex social political economic military organism we are facing. No insurgency is made up of a military endevour alone. Our blows MUST be aimed at all their centres of gravity and weaknesses, we must be certain of the right targets, be dissatisfied at the illusions they create that may seem real. The opposition has proclaimed victory after victory without causing any damage. The OPFOR centre has NEVER been touched, their message, their ability to communicate, to gain funding, to direct sympathizers, to hold what we have been told is a dying movement together.
We needed to know these centres and carefully cripple and destroy them, always starting at a point of knowledge of OPFOR points of vulnerability.
During this time the reverse has been the case however, it is the opposition that has steadily been degraded. For all their rhetorical statements of 'VICTORY' and of success, are not matched by what has been the true nature of their progress. Funded from abroad their ability to fund themselves is not any indication of popular support, the OPFOR controls the state media and there is little coordination able to communicate a single liberation message among the ‘independent free Zimbabwean media’. Indeed the brutal and churlish OPFOR actions have assisted the opposition to gain recruits, but what productive ends have these people been put to besides being channelled into the role of praise singers in the leadership cult of personality of as vote fodder for yet more rigged elections? We are told parties have been working to gain more political goodwill in the region and the outside world yet deaths are occurring and much talk has still lead to no intervention.
The OPFOR have begun to reveal more weaknesses. But no parties are working flat out to attack any of these central pillars, when weakened the OPFOR side leans on other legs to keep itself up. These represent targets to be aware for the day of the inevitable strike against these structural supports.
The key to any anti OPFOR counterstrategy, is the idea of STRENGTH in DEPTH, of leadership, of resources, but most importantly of ideas. The country is in a bad place, repression and manipulation holds sway. It is for those who seek to resist the OPFOR regime to counter that systems cunning and savagery with ability, to show strength, to unify the population. Avoiding the polarization trap fallen for so easily by so many others in the past.
The resistance must operate precisely and must always target appropriately, resisting the temptation of emotion that seeks nothing more than revenge and over-reaction. It is no longer a question of being the same over hyped opportunistic politicians leading cults of personality with rhetorical statementts on roads that lead politically to nowhere. Instead it is a question of quality of leadership and strength of conviction and use of intelligence. What standards have been set and reached for the 'leadership' role, what vetting procedures weed out undesirable traits and elements?
At present fear is the greatest weapon in the OPFOR arsenal, often initiated via brutal means in selected places at selected times it spreads subconsciously throughout as a series of ripple effects, rumours, enactment of unjust laws, and citizen’s passivity and indifference in the face of obvious wrong doing. The end products are pacification of the people and doubt. Indifference, mistrust and apathy gaining ground within the body of the wider population at an exponential rate.
The terror is real for many, but for the majority of Zimbabweans it is largely purely psychological. It is up to the resistance leadership to build confidence and show the nature of the situation in a realistic light. When you overreact to a large attack, or react to rumour without proper verification you dance to the OPFOR tune; you show the enemy your own impatience and weakness; they take note and succeed with their next level of manipulation.
The resistance must respond with carefully calibrated campaigns and actions aiming greater and greater pressure at the OPFOR weaknesses and vulnerabilities. In the past the opposition to the OPFOR never sought to take any initiative; their use of intelligence and plan of attack has ALWAYS been reactive never proactive... However in situations such as these, actions that show you mean business are the ones that ACTUALLY matter.
This analysis is purposefully abstract with many gaps to be filled in by the cadres themselves. In time topics pertaining to the use of technology and Open Source information will be raised. But here we seek to understand strategy at its highest, most abstract level. An overall idea waiting to be made flesh via inputs of other good ideas. It is the overall picture that filters down and makes everything else come together as more sense. As stated in von Clausewitz ‘On War’.
To counter the OPFOR threat I contend and stress that we need to constantly revisit and study the tactics used by the OPFOR during the second Chimurenga war, Gukurahundi and other pogroms and be fully aware of Mao’s approach to ‘cultural revolution’ and guerrilla warfare.
The acts of State terrorism are frightening but we must not be so paralysed not to see the variations and adaptations applied to an overall theme. The OPFOR system of fighting within this present phase is based upon ‘chaotic’ strategy, one where operatives have their own independent missions command systems. What seems like a disordered front is very ordered and has method in its seeming madness. Let us not forget 200 military officers were tasked with coordinating this spate of violence on the ground.
Seeing this clearly depends on your capacity to not fall for the illusion and to see the enemy's strategy and its multiple inputs realistically.
The future will belong to those who are nation builders and reconstruction thinkers at all levels; those within and outside political office. Those among ourselves whose ideas and actions will facilitate a greater life for future generations due to the fact that when it mattered they were at the forefront of this fight for change breaking apart the OPFOR influence. The temptations are great: to fall into the destructive habits of the past, to become obsessed with the style and fashion and surface details, of the technology and ideas we use without digging into the real depth of any substance of how these things work or are produced. A resurgent Zimbabwe can be a catalyst away from the fruitless cycles of bad governance and promises that bring only more of the same status quo rather than real change; the endless back and forth of the global addiction to Africa’s wealth and constant undermining and denigration of Africa’s people.
The key to this process, will always be the strategy itself. The lack of a viable 'own' vision is our greatest enemy--not their corporations or leaders, but the lack of strategy itself. In each case we, must continually return to the question of what actions will enable this vision, allowing the intended strategy we own to be made manifest. What psychological and behavioural patterns made past errors possible. Let us be clear in war all mistakes are potentially punnishable by death. There can be no ambiguity in this; thus our thoughts must be objective and our judgements based upon honest and clear analysis. The wholly subjective and often self indulgent analysis of the situation and political environment held by the opposition, is based upon seeing the world through a very narrow self-righteous prism...'the good guys dont make mistakes'. Opposition situational analysis has been lead by a COLOUR REVOLUTION template constructed outside Zimbabwe. In war both tactically and stratigically, an over reliance upon self delusion only serves to hand victory to the opponent. The intention to create mass protest movement to unseat the OPFOR regime was only a viable option if carried out as part of a full blown insurgency strategy; too much was left to chance and fate and hope and circumstance.
Much like Adolf Hitlers last gasp Ardennes offensive in December 1944. The Ardennes Offensive ( 16 December 1944 – 25 January 1945 ) was a major German offensive on the Western Front and was launched towards the end of World War II . This offensive was called Unternehmen Wacht am Rhein and it is pertinent due to the fact that the two main prongs of its attack are prime examples of strategic and tactical considerations at work and are relevant to the Zimbabwe case due to the following reasons.
As with political power struggles, the success of any military offensinve is based upon how closely the plans written on paper and theorhetical ambitions reflect the objective reality of the situation on the ground. The battle is a classic example that shows that merely wishing for victory is worlds away from the type of correct ground analysis that makes victory a certainty.
In brief summary the German offensive relied on the false hope that the enemy wold not resist, the false hope that kinetic momentum and pressure would sweep all before them, the false hope that all that they said would happen would take place; that INTEL was only needed to the front but not in any depth.
The two tank armies charged with gaining the objective, are the equivalent of political ideas...they failed because there was little flexibility in the plan. The 6th Tank Army had the more direct route to the objective it held the weight of the strategic success on its line of attack; yet it had the least hospitable terrain to traverse. The comparison could be to the use of the direct arguement raised in 2002 of OPFOR LEGITIMACY...here the thrust of the opposition case was to fight with a direct strategy based upon the simple point...our country is now in the hands of an illegitimate regime...this was the toughest terrain but success here would have meant knowing a fight had to be properly prepared for; but winning that fight would have meant winning the battle. The 5th Tank Army had the path easier to traverse, but it was an indirect route, its attack lead largely away from the objective...This example is akin to the economic arguement we are now faced with....we/you are poor because these people are in charge.
Indeed tactical blows have been landed but to only a very limited strategic effect. The planned goal for these arguements has not been achieved.
Rather than heed this call as hoped many Zimbabweans elected to adapt to the harsh circumstances or leave. The political arguement that national economics wholly determined the state of the individual rejected as a firm rallying point of protest, when reality showed individuals choosing to determine the state of their own economics. The switching to the economic arguement allowing the OPFOR to stage its own anti-colonialism defence where much of the intellectaul and psychological damage done by their poor record was turned into a race baiting rallying point...The idea that sanctions rigged the elections against the OPFOR, the propaganda document released on the 25 March 2008 and threats that the opposition are Western stooges seeking to reverse the gains of the land take overs and the liberation struggle, being examples of such. A check steeling the minds of their supporters against 'surrender' due to the fear of consequences of defeat; much like the hardening of resolve created when American prisoners were found executed.
Though many have predicted a major OPFOR political / physical offensive for months if not years, the present attacks still seem to surprise some. The degree of surprise achieved today similar to that suffered by the Allies. The causes overconfidence, a preoccupation with their own offensive plans, poor reconnaissance, and the relative lack of intelligence contacts in vital areas.
For the Germans gaining and consolidating a series of limited objectives along the tougher but more direct path would have served a greater strategic purpose over a longer period of time, taking manageable steps to victory, rather than placing all hopes on one ill concieved gamble, but these considerations were dismissed for transient reasons.
Just as Western 'gun-boat', 'megaphone' diplomacy, and financial ties force the opposition to resist commonsense today.
The main assault was checked so emphasis was placed upon the secondary movement. Indeed a level of tactical progress was made but at the expense of overall strategic success. In Zimbabwe we are faced with a situation where we are told constantly that election success is victory yet no regime removal strategy exists. As with the German attack there seems little point hailing success if your real path is denied and all 'success' is on the wrong front. The economy is crippled, yet no damage has been done to the real power of the state.
The success of the battle on the economic front will not prevent a direct confrontation in the battle of legitimacy. Hobbled by a failure to create an organised committed radicalized and fearless base of discontent. Reliance upon 'peaceful-nonviolent' civic groups that are all bark and no teeth, to highlight regime brutality and over reliance on a form of political rhetoric which has no depth in relation to peoples discontents and no means of allaying security fears has stalled the real effort. In short a plan that owed more to theory than reality; relying on a politics that is heavily padded with wholly useless name calling, populist slogan chanting and faith in hidden political alliances and agendas bringing forth a non-existent international pressure is going no where.
As in the Ardennes, enemy stubbornness, German lack of realism and loss of momentum cost them the day.
The rhetoric fuelled / hidden agenda based strategy of the opposition has lead to the great levels of self delusion and rejection of honest critique that forms the foundation of self deception that over the years has lead to completely unnecessary failure and losses.
As the new wave of struggle approaches we must be clear what inputs make the new vision different from everything else that has gone before it. Our mindsets and how we communicate our ideas are the first and last line of defence.
No organizational structure is perfect, neither 100% strong nor 100% weak. Success in this endeavour rests upon correct situation awareness and the right calculations; constantly pitting our strengths versus known OPFOR weaknesses.
No organizational structure is perfect, neither 100% strong nor 100% weak. Success in this endeavour rests upon correct situation awareness and the right calculations; constantly pitting our strengths versus known OPFOR weaknesses.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment