Readings Newsletter
Become a Readings Member to make your shopping experience even easier.
Sign in or sign up for free!
You’re not far away from qualifying for FREE standard shipping within Australia
You’ve qualified for FREE standard shipping within Australia
The cart is loading…

The ongoing efforts in the Global War on Terror have shown how modern insurgents and terrorists have made ample use of transnational sanctuaries to undermine efforts in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Counter insurgent forces are reluctant to conduct overt strikes against these sanctuaries for fear of conflict escalation and information operations ramifications. These concerns combine to prevent US action and as such, transnational sanctuaries continue to undermine the success of COIN operations in adjacent countries. What then can the United States do in response to problem posed by transnational sanctuaries? One proposed solution is for unilateral strikes against these sanctuaries. Advocates on this position believe that by simply attacking the insurgents in these transnational sanctuaries the U.S. can deal the insurgency a deathblow and obtain strategic victory. This oversimplification ignores the historical experience of other countries. This paper will the examine the Republic of South Africa's (RSA) substantial use of cross-border operations in support of its counterinsurgency in Namibia as a case study of how to effectively employ cross-border operations to set the conditions for strategic victory. The South African experience shows that successful cross-border operations of themselves do not guarantee victory. Cross-border attacks not linked to the overall COIN efforts to reduce popular support for the insurgency are counterproductive. Such military centric attacks may decrease the legitimacy of the government conducting the counterinsurgency and undermine long-term strategic goals of the campaign.
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.
This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.
As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
$9.00 standard shipping within Australia
FREE standard shipping within Australia for orders over $100.00
Express & International shipping calculated at checkout
The ongoing efforts in the Global War on Terror have shown how modern insurgents and terrorists have made ample use of transnational sanctuaries to undermine efforts in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Counter insurgent forces are reluctant to conduct overt strikes against these sanctuaries for fear of conflict escalation and information operations ramifications. These concerns combine to prevent US action and as such, transnational sanctuaries continue to undermine the success of COIN operations in adjacent countries. What then can the United States do in response to problem posed by transnational sanctuaries? One proposed solution is for unilateral strikes against these sanctuaries. Advocates on this position believe that by simply attacking the insurgents in these transnational sanctuaries the U.S. can deal the insurgency a deathblow and obtain strategic victory. This oversimplification ignores the historical experience of other countries. This paper will the examine the Republic of South Africa's (RSA) substantial use of cross-border operations in support of its counterinsurgency in Namibia as a case study of how to effectively employ cross-border operations to set the conditions for strategic victory. The South African experience shows that successful cross-border operations of themselves do not guarantee victory. Cross-border attacks not linked to the overall COIN efforts to reduce popular support for the insurgency are counterproductive. Such military centric attacks may decrease the legitimacy of the government conducting the counterinsurgency and undermine long-term strategic goals of the campaign.
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.
This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.
As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.