That term is taken from Emmanuel Todd's "After the Empire".
I was reminded of it by this story:
U.S. troops fight to retake three towns near Syriahttp://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_3088171So, what do we have here? The mightiest military in the world fighting to "retake" three hamlets with NO conventional force whatsoever anywhere in the area, just civilians and irregulars. There is no question that they will "retake" the hamlets. But then what? The "possession" of the hamlets is worth nothing, militarily, politically, in any way, and the soldiers don't really want to be there either. So there is no strategic or tactical value in obtaining temporary "possession" of these hamlets. It is purely as drama intended to show that something can be done, a demonstration of non-impotence, of pseudo-control.
Then we have this story:
US-led forces bomb eight bridges over Iraq's Euphrateshttp://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=73587Here we have the destruction of bridges to deny the non-existent opposing force maneuverability. It will deny the Iraqi resistance irregular forces nothing, since they do not maneuver, and they will find other means to cross the river if they wish. In the meantime it gives them a clearer idea of where the US forces will not be coming from, i.e. the destroyed bridges. Again, it is purely a dramatic exercise intended to demonstrate non-impotence.
We are watching the decay of conventional military force as an effective political tool. This is not the first case of a large, expensive, highly-trained conventional force being unable to effect the intended political change with NO conventional opposing force on the field, and it most likely will not be the last. The method of resistance is clear and well known now, and the lesson is there to be learned for those with the wit to learn it. Irregular forces, reasonable well-armed with light weapons, and lightly trained, can resist conventional occupation forces effectively and indefinitely, short of genocide, and they do.