Disregard at your own risk
Quote:
I'm not convinced that AQ really wields significant economic power.
The fact that non-state actors are supporting (in some cases with State support) effective insurgencies, NGOs that provide medical care and preach violent jihad (it's working, so it is influence, thus power), and build their version of schools (and pay for students around the world to attend them) to further mobilize the 1.3 billion Sunni Umna clearly indicates that non-state actors have considerable economic power. Economic power isn't based on GDP, it based on how much influence you have over the relevant audience with the money you do have. In other words, economic power is not always economic might (if you're constrained from spending your money effectively, it doesn't matter), economic power is the ability to wield your economy capability (whether is $2mill or $2bill) in a way that "influences" the target audience to conform to your desires.
The other side of the coin is that our state based economic power centers are more vulnerable to attack than non-state economic centers of gravity. On the other hand, with the exception of freezing some bank accounts, their sources of economic might through organized crime, world wide donations through informal channels, etc. are much harder to target effectively. I'm a supporter of the argument that non-state actor indirect attacks on our economy (actions that cause us to spend, spend, spend in response) may not be sustainable, but that is open to debate. To avoid stupid spending where we get no return on our investment we need to develop a smart strategy (different than so called smart power).
Quote:
I don't think the "Smart Power" term is meant to imply that we previously used stupid power... it's a buzzword
You made my point, it is nothing new, just another buzzword; however, the implication is clear, military power is stupid and it won't work. Those who study these matters have always known there are some problems where the military is the correct response and other cases they're simply a supporting arm if they're a player at all. As you look throughout our history you can find several examples of so called smart power. Smart power could actually mean something, it could mean developing our human capital with education, but I'm off on another subject....
Quote:
In any event I'd argue that the change in the US position relative to the rest of the world has more to do with political and economic factors than with military ones.
No doubt that is true, furthermore we have new threats that our Cold War political-military model is not ideally postured to deal with; however, (and this may not be your intent) you can't separate military power from the evolving economic and political environment, since both define (and constantly redefine) how military power can be employed. My argument that our current (post cold war era) views has severely constrained the military to the point that even if the administration desires a military solution it is not possible. Keep in mind that can change very rapidly, since we all know the last World War (hell, the last war ever according to some) was WWI. We may have to get mean again, and if we do the political environment will probably change to allow that.
Quote:
I dislike political correctness as much as anyone, but we have to recognize that the days when we could simply impose a solution that suits our interests are gone forever.
I think you missed the mark on this one, due to political correctness we attempt to impose what are perceived as hostile Western solutions that suit our views (not necessarily our interests). If we would wake up and realize we can't always impose our views upon others (unless we're willing to do so by force), then we'll develop more realistic policies. I think we may agree on this one?
By the way, the title is supposed to be "Smart" Power
Gents, one factor that may be clouding the issue is that I'm not writing about "soft" power, which is a perfectly necessary part of improved security, but about "smart" power (balancing hard and soft).
The title's misleading because we had to break the original thread, and the new one was named from memory and can't be changed. Keep in mind that it should be "Applied Smart Power from a SEAL", to put the discussion in accurate context.
One simple sample of multi-benefit societal development
Firn,
I support your assertion that we can defeat many ills with one well-placed investment. In fact, I've lifted the below suggestion from the April piece from my "Applied Smart Power" blog, http://conflictincontext.wordpress.com/ and the April article is: http://conflictincontext.wordpress.com/tag/iraq/ It speaks to the holistic problem - and holistic solution - facing us in OIF and OEF.
And yes - it's simplistic. I'm not naive, and I know that some of our invested funds would be skimmed. Some would even be diverted to insurgent uses...but doing something in this direction, and reaping the rewards, makes it worth the cost:
----------------
“I won’t make my wife a prostitute.”
The man quoted is one of thousands of unemployed Iraqi men, living in pathetic conditions through no fault of his own. He needs work, because his family needs food. His options are simple: 1) acquire gainful employment; 2) put his wife to work on her back with no other marketable skills; 3) emplace an improvised explosive device by the side of a road to earn the freelance insurgent “supporter” rate of $150 – and thus feed his family for a month.
On point 1, where there is nearly 30% unemployment (70% in some areas, and 80% for women), he has no opportunities. On point 2, he has taken a stand. Point 3, then, is the only avenue remaining. When our soldier is struck by that IED, what will our response be? Appropriately, we will capture or kill this now-valid “target”, this pitiful actor at the end of his rope, this family’s only possible breadwinner…greatly worsening the lot of a woman and children already in desperate need.
The neighbors won’t fail to notice how this plays out.
For years I have written and spoken about the urgent need for those of us with dominant power to look through the eyes of and engage other populations and individuals as a higher way to reduce the conflict threatening all sides. These struggles will be described in many forms in upcoming Conflict in Context posts, from passive-aggressive hassles around the workplace to taking a much-unwanted knife in the ribs.
Let me offer just one highly preferable alternative to killing the man who puts out a bomb to kill an American to earn $150 to give his daughter some food: let’s give him $300. That’s right; let’s double his income, giving him a one-time, good-deal payout of $300 to care for his family as he chooses.
Next month, let’s offer him the same $300 – only this time, let’s attach a string: he has to sit through vocational rehabilitation classes to learn a trade like electrical work. Heaven knows, this country is in desperate need of qualified electricians to begin patching together a safe and reliable infrastructure!
The third month, let’s attach another string to his $300: let’s make him accompany an electrician as an apprentice, reinforcing the lessons he learned in class.
His fourth month, and every month afterward, we’ll require him to earn his $300 by working as an instructor-electrician and taking out a new apprentice coming up through the same program.
The fifth month, we split the salary cost 50/50 with the Iraqi government and begin to empower it to take over this domestic responsibility.
Within half a year, the Iraqi government is bearing the entire cost of these salaries in exchange for greatly-improved public power distribution and a huge reduction in injuries caused by faulty wiring. No American soldier was killed by the men in this program, because they receive twice the income for a much safer avocation and discover self-respect. No wife is pimped, no child is hungry, and the rebuilding of a society is in full swing.
How do the costs work out? According to conservative estimates, the US government pays more than ten billion dollars a month to run the war in Iraq. If we round down for argument’s sake to nine billion, this rate could pay for thirty million work-study program participants.
There aren’t even thirty million Iraqis in the whole country!
So let’s divert one thousandth of that 9 billion dollars, and we can begin rebuilding the nation with 30,000 men. Or take just one ten-thousandth (0.001%), and start with only 3,000. That’s 3,000 families restored – 3,000 potential bombers eliminated – 3,000 less chances for our soldier to be torn apart. Imagine where this might take us.
Where would we find less than a million dollars to spare? Well, you can start by cutting out the Baskin-Robbins cart here at my dining facility. It is a war, after all. My comrades and I will find some way to bravely carry on without it.
Real, unlimited solutions in the unlimited world of conflict are within reach, if we are willing to use imagination, daring, and the vast reservoir of experience held by security professionals who refuse to step into the box.
Rob DuBois and Applied Smart Power back in action
Gents,
It's been nearly a year since my last breath in this forum. After finishing the Afghanistan tour I returned to DC...and straight into the cyclone of writing, speaking and managing stuff. How is it that we can find more time to discuss important matters like this when we're at war than when we're nestled snug in our own beds Stateside?
"Applied" smart power has come much clearer since our last Autumn swirl. Now I'll be able to answer the questions and express the message in a more satisfactory way for anyone hoping to understand it. There won't be much meat in this particular posting, but I attended the "Cutting the Fuse" Congressional gathering with Steve Clemons yesterday and in searching out news of it tonight I stumbled happily back into SWC. More will follow.
(You can see the outline for this conference at: http://www.newamerica.net/events/2010/cutting_the_fuse)
Put simply - applied smart power (ASP) is like a micro version of the macro concept of "smart power." Smart power is Joseph Nye's international relations theory that coercion and attraction, or hard and soft power, have to be balanced more effectively between states in order to promote cooperation and prevent inadvertent antagonism (inviting unnecessary violence) through excess force.
"Applied" smart power, then, is that aspect of engagement many of us in the Council have already practiced over many continents and many decades - it's the understanding that comes from an American named Rob or a Brit named Andy working side-by-side with a local guy named Ahmet or Sasha or Burhan, building understanding with that person himself, and having that knowledge trickle up toward countrymen...and policy makers. Applying smart power means ratcheting international theory down to become interpersonal activity.
And yet, what is one of the more common complaints from those of us serving in the mud or sand close to our partners? "Those conventional guys back home/in HQ just don't get it! We are screwing up this fight if the locals can't trust us." We see firsthand how counterproductive certain TTPs or SOPs or policies can be in the big picture of mission accomplishment.
To be fair to critics of ASP, this is not easily distilled down to metrics, any more than a federal judge can define pornography...he just "knows it" when he sees it. However, if you think about many of the higher functions of our peculiar race (the humans) like great art, love, or wisdom, they all tend to be a lot harder to define. Any monkey with a paint-by-numbers canvas can paint a picture, but it ain't art without a master behind the brush.
Likewise, any monkey with a gun can shoot when he feels threatened...but a warrior can discern whether that shooting might do him more harm than good.
That's where this discussion is coming from. I was extremely happy to hear similar balance-hard-and-soft points coming from many of yesterday's speakers, including Congressman Brian Baird, Governor Thomas Kean (if you listened to CSPAN you heard my Q&A with both of them) and of course Steve, Bob Pape and Peter Bergen. There is a virtual "surge" of thinking coming, which is meeting in the middle and agreeing with me that no one "side" can have the only right approach. There is a finer solution somewhere amidst the myriad opinions, which unfortunately take on a life of their own (through the magic of personal ego wars) and become the issue instead of addressing the issue.
As threatened earlier, more will follow. Please feel free to begin attacking at your earliest convenience. :)
By the way, if you aren't too numbed by this overview of ASP yet, I would encourage you to review some illustrative articles at what I consider the finest blog in the ether, PowerfulPeace.net. Coincidentally, I happen to write Powerful Peace, but I like to think I'd consider it the finest even if someone else wrote it.
- Rob