RFI comparing tactical COIN and Asset Based Community Development

[ptamas]

Hello

I'm putting a paper together mostly for an NGO/development crowd. The itch I'm scratching is a tendency in those circles to see soldiers and soldiers' work in conflict and post-conflict as different in kind from themselves and their own work. This conceit is unhelpful in all sorts of ways.
so....
The paper I'm working on compares at tactical COIN and asset based community development. The summary work I have done has found that there are high levels of overlap at a field level, in principle, in politics and in relationships with bureaucrats.

On the civilian side I have no issues with material. On the military side, high level material is easy to get. Field level stuff, and material that discusses internal, ahem, difficulties is much harder. This is frustrating because most of the contacts I have in the Canadian Forces confirm what I'm looking for but I can't find material I can cite.

So...I have one tribe at a time. That one is great.
I want as many documents like that as I can get my hands on. They key is stuff that lets me have a rather unpolished look at how folks construct themselves, their work, the communities they work in and the hierarchy they work for.

In an ideal world, I would be able to sit down with a couple of dozen folks from the SF community. Not likely. It took me 2 years to negotiate my way in the side door of the Canadian forces...so I can't imagine it would be any easier elsewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset-Based_Community_Development

thanks in advance
and
of course,
I'll post what I am forwarded and what I produce here.

[Rex Brynen]

On the civilian side I have no issues with material. On the military side, high level material is easy to get. Field level stuff, and material that discusses internal, ahem, difficulties is much harder. This is frustrating because most of the contacts I have in the Canadian Forces confirm what I'm looking for but I can't find material I can cite.

Moreover, it is becoming increasingly rare that folks put negative, frank appraisals into written form--especially in Canada where they've become increasingly ATIP-able (http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/aip/pr-rp/arp-rap-2004-eng.asp#4). Indeed, they're often directed by higher-ups not to (as the Colvin affair on Afghan detainees highlighted).

The development community is also pretty bad at this, despite all the attention paid to monitoring and evaluation.

[ptamas]

especially in Canada where they've become increasingly ATIP-able (http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/aip/pr-rp/arp-rap-2004-eng.asp#4). Indeed, they're often directed by higher-ups not to (as the Colvin affair on Afghan detainees highlighted).

The development community is also pretty bad at this, despite all the attention paid to monitoring and evaluation.

Tell me.
Just finishing up a project for the CIDA ATF. They are enormously paranoid about ATIP. That aside, they appear in may ways to be structurally unable to hear frank critique, even when framed in support of the mission, from within their own organization.

Guess this is predictable. It seems to be an uncomfortably large wart on a junior ministry running a high risk venture that is subject to all sorts of meddling in a complex environment within a traditional bureaucratic structure that is riddled with perverse incentives under a deeply short-sighted political microscope.


I've actually found the Canadian Forces to be a far more pleasant place to work.