Applied Smart Power by a SEAL
(Moderator added comment: Introductory remarks were on the Hail & Farewell thread: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=8667).
My long-winded introduction is really just to set the stage for my own personal crusade, which is to help communicate the fundamentals of Smart Power at the interpersonal level. Having spent most of my professional life immersed in cultures other than my own (thanks to an incredibly strong and patient wife!), I've experienced countless incidents in which conflict was avoidable or avoided by improved understanding between parties. The members of this council, above most other groups, must be aware of the tragic consequences when innocent lives are tangled up in violent hatreds.
At the same time, we all have to respect the periodic requirement for "necessary violence" (i.e., in response to a suicide bomber's approach to an entry control point).
I write two blogs and a hardcopy column on this important topic. (Those are ConflictInContext.org and PowerfulPeace.net - I'll try to link the column to my profile. Note that the latter is published as "Jack Oatmon".) I'm also writing a book, similarly titled "Powerful Peace", in hopes of reaching readers across the spectrum to "subvert" excess reliance on force. It will be a sort of global hearts-and-minds campaign, intended to leverage the proactive engagement of citizens in the US and beyond.
Okay. With that out of the way...let the opinion attacks begin. :)
Smart Power is what again?
First off welcome to the council, now put up your dukes:D
I occassionally agree with Wilf against my better judgment and this is one of those times. Smart power is a concept that basically states we should do things smartly instead of being stupid. I agree, but I hope that isn't new.
As for employing all the elements of national power, when haven't we? I can't think of any conflict where we only employed one so called tool?
I thought our tax dollars paid SEALs to lift big weights, swim long distances, and blow things up, now you're confusing me with this smart power stuff....
Soft Power on this end of the world
Quote:
Originally Posted by
J. Robert DuBois
"Smart power" ...
Rob, Welcome Aboard !
I intentionally will refrain from using Smart and State in the same paragraph :wry:
I however really enjoyed the Finnish Institute's use of the term Soft Power regarding Russia's resurgence:
Quote:
money, media, alliance with the Orthodox church, and even energy
:eek:
Wonder what SecState thinks of that order of precedence ?
Regards, Stan
DB, your salient point ...
is this ?
Quote:
Where my work modifies this existing controversy even further is in the assertion that it is possible to reach individuals and groups of individuals at a much lower level and leverage large enough portions of influenced populations to upwardly or outwardly influence local systems like government or terrorism.
This sounds like Saul Alinsky, who has some students here as to his methodology. In any event, you are clearly not talking about state to state diplomacy and application of "soft power", etc., at that level. Are you basically starting at the tactical level of the "Political Struggle"[*] ?
-----------------------
[*] Basically looking at war (organized violence) as being composed of two reciprocal factors: the Military Struggle and the Political Stuggle. As the intensity of the Military Struggle increases, there is less room for the Political Struggle. Conversely as the Military Struggle winds down, the Political Struggle can intensify ("clear, hold and build" would be one example, imperfect as the "build" part might be in any given case).
An open question in my mind is whether intensification of the Political Struggle can de-intensify the Military Struggle. Advocates of Peace Enforcement (Chap 7 of the UN Charter) and "Robust Peacekeeping" (Chap 6-3/4 of the UN Charter) seem to think so.
As I am using the term "Political Struggle", it is a very broad term covering all of the non-military means used in an armed conflict. It has nothing to do with war as a continuation of politics or policy (Politik, as used by CvC) by use of other means, except that both the Military Struggle and the Political Struggle have to have the same end state as determined by Politik.
There is a natural tendency to first go to the Military Struggle (after all, folks are shooting at you or trying to blow you up) - as to which SWC has many experts (not JMM). Since I fit into the "soft side" of the reciprocal equation (the Political Struggle), I tend to look at that more than the other.
Thanks to Mike and M-A...
...This is such an excellent discussion. You two and others are bringing a lot of valuable perspective and information. (You can be sure, though, that I'll be extremely wary about flavoring my Applied Smart Power for conflict reduction with references to a published Marxist! As Paul and John sang, "If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, ain't nobody gonna listen to you anyhow.")
As a new guy, I still feel bad for tying up our Hail & Farewell bin - is there a moderator or tech wizard who could export the whole thing to another section? Alternatively, would a veteran recommend I open a new thread to pick up the conversation?
Look at a map of th US...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Steve the Planner
Looked like the map of Africom/Centcom. 50% Urban; 50% of those in informal settlements; 50% under 30 years of age. Serious poverty, lack of services, social instability.
The problem is: How do we systematize implementable solutions to these high-needs areas either before or after they fall to conflict. The root is always poverty, lack of education/services/resources/participation. Less slogans, more implementable solutions, please.
All that would be helpful here...
I volunteer someone else!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bourbon
Bourbon,
Best person to review this would be Melissa Payson, who has worked on the ground in both places, maybe not in schools and has the perspective needed.
davidbfpo
Increasing U.S. Soft Power in the Muslim World
Sorry to join the discussion so late.
Does anyone know about the Amerika Haus institutions in Germany? I was wondering if they can be used as a model for the Middle East. Setting up an institution to learn about American democracy may seem a little forced to the intended audience, so I was thinking about setting up institutions where locals can learn about things such as American advancements in science and technology*. I'd like to you some of your thoughts.
*In Soft Power by Joseph Nye, he point out that 70% of Muslims polled say they admire U.S. advancement in science and technology.
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.