Logos vs. Pathos in the cause of the war

[TheCurmudgeon]

I have been working on an idea of a matrix for types of wars that is based on the original cause of the conflict. The idea being that the root cause drives the potential solution sets that then determine your policy/tactics in executing the war to reach your desired (or less than desired) end state. The concept is similar to what the FBI taught on how to negotiate with hostage takers based on the reason the person took hostages in the first place.

One of the distinctions I have been looking at is whether the conflict has its origins in a logical basis (i.e. seize territory for economic gain, seizing political power) or whether it has an emotional basis (i.e. religious or ethnic identity, a drive for freedom). Emotional wars tend started or well-up through the masses where logical wars tend to be initiated by the current political structure or an organized rival to it.

The policy and tactics would correspond to the type of conflict. Logical wars would be fought by making the price of continuing the war more costly than ending it or removing the political leadership that initiated the war. Emotional wars would be much more sticky and would have to address or redress the issue that is driving the masses. Taking out the current leadership would have little long term affect.

My questions are -

1. does this distinction ring true or is it only in my feeble imagination,

2. is the distinction useful, and

3. if it is, what other subcategories would be helpful?

[Rex Brynen]

Have you had a look at the whole greed vs grievance debate in the literature on civil wars?

[slapout9]

I have been working on an idea of a matrix for types of wars that is based on the original cause of the conflict. The idea being that the root cause drives the potential solution sets that then determine your policy/tactics in executing the war to reach your desired (or less than desired) end state. The concept is similar to what the FBI taught on how to negotiate with hostage takers based on the reason the person took hostages in the first place.

I would say you are very solid ground here!!! I'll comment more later if you are interested.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I have seen the Collier-Hoeffler article which is helpful in those situations where the two intersect or where "greed" drives "grievance", but I was looking more for a practitioners point of view. Also, my math is just not that good.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I would say you are very solid ground here!!! I'll comment more later if you are interested.

Please, the more the better...

[William F. Owen]

The policy and tactics would correspond to the type of conflict. Logical wars would be fought by making the price of continuing the war more costly than ending it or removing the political leadership that initiated the war. Emotional wars would be much more sticky and would have to address or redress the issue that is driving the masses. Taking out the current leadership would have little long term affect.

The policy or the strategy? Policy is politics. It is neither rational or logical. War are almost never logical. Strategy costs blood and treasure, thus alters policy.

1. does this distinction ring true or is it only in my feeble imagination,

2. is the distinction useful, and

3. if it is, what other subcategories would be helpful?

I can answer none of those, but I can recommend some good books. Strategy can be taught in terms of better or worse. Policy cannot be taught.
You are not in Afghanistan because of a strategy. You are there because of a policy.

[slapout9]

Please, the more the better...

Fixing to have to go in a minute. But (this is from memory) a political motive is easier to deal with, he wants something, he doesn't really want to kill the hostage. An emotional (Domestic Violence Situation) is the most dangerous, he may say he wants to negotiate but he may really just want to make a point. Which is why they often kill the hostage and then kill themselves, kinda domestic violence martyrdom.

Your problem will most likely be intelligence, the more you know about the person the better you stand a chance at solving the situation. In peacetime it is hard enough, in a combat zone, you'ev got a real problem.

Gotta go.

[TheCurmudgeon]

The policy or the strategy? Policy is politics. It is neither rational or logical. War are almost never logical. Strategy costs blood and treasure, thus alters policy.

I would disagree. Policy, strategy, and tactics need to be coherent and they need to be driven towards a common goal. If not then we are just groping around for targets hoping that we have the right ones. I believe that this would be a tool more for policy types than for trigger pullers.

I can answer none of those, but I can recommend some good books. Strategy can be taught in terms of better or worse. Policy cannot be taught.
You are not in Afghanistan because of a strategy. You are there because of a policy.

Always interested in a good book.

I believe we are always where we are (or are not) because of policy (politics). Strategy is what we use to achieve that policy. Where the strategy and the policy diverge is where I believe you have trouble.

Would you make any distinctions in the types of conflicts that could be generalized? How about distinctions in the types of populations you are fighting amongst?

[William F. Owen]

Policy, strategy, and tactics need to be coherent and they need to be driven towards a common goal. If not then we are just groping around for targets hoping that we have the right ones. I believe that this would be a tool more for policy types than for trigger pullers.

I agree that a strategy can only be realised in tactics. That is true. Strategy should set forth policy. Also true.
BUT - The idea that policy is either rational, logical or recognises those things in relation to the means used to set it forth is without evidence.

I believe we are always where we are (or are not) because of policy (politics). Strategy is what we use to achieve that policy. Where the strategy and the policy diverge is where I believe you have trouble.

I agree.

Would you make any distinctions in the types of conflicts that could be generalized?

I only make distinctions in conflict types as a tool for my ideas on training/doctrine/force development . I think there is really only regular warfare and irregular warfare.

[Tukhachevskii]

I have been working on an idea of a matrix for types of wars that is based on the original cause of the conflict. The idea being that the root cause drives the potential solution sets that then determine your policy/tactics in executing the war to reach your desired (or less than desired) end state. The concept is similar to what the FBI taught on how to negotiate with hostage takers based on the reason the person took hostages in the first place.

One of the distinctions I have been looking at is whether the conflict has its origins in a logical basis (i.e. seize territory for economic gain, seizing political power) or whether it has an emotional basis (i.e. religious or ethnic identity, a drive for freedom). Emotional wars tend started or well-up through the masses where logical wars tend to be initiated by the current political structure or an organized rival to it.

The policy and tactics would correspond to the type of conflict. Logical wars would be fought by making the price of continuing the war more costly than ending it or removing the political leadership that initiated the war. Emotional wars would be much more sticky and would have to address or redress the issue that is driving the masses. Taking out the current leadership would have little long term affect.

My questions are -

1. does this distinction ring true or is it only in my feeble imagination,

2. is the distinction useful, and

3. if it is, what other subcategories would be helpful?

I am confused over the meanings you ascribe to "logic" and "emotion". Religions are as much rational and logical as are their believers; I doubt that any member of a religion would base their faith on some kind of Kierkegaardian leap of faith alone; rational justification based upon some kind of logical inference or theoretical structure is always part and parcel of the mix.

Rational (or logical actors) actors often rationalise their emotions based upon pre-existing biases or social stocks of knowledge considered true discursively but which objectiviely may be false (of course, any objective criteria are suspect too, anthropocentrically speaking).

Social structures can be as rational as they can be illogical and emotional; take for instance health care in the US or the nanny state here in Blighty. Merton's "laws of unintended consequences" (or what we call Sod's Law- I think there's a hint in there for S(ystematic)O(perational)D(esign) enthusiasts!) always occur no matter how rational, sober and logical a CoA, insitution, or individual may consider itself.

[J Wolfsberger]

I wouldn't take quite the same tack as Tukhachevskii. But going back to your original post, "logical basis" vs. "emotional basis" seems similar to the Games Theory distinction between rational and non-rational actors.

The rational actor has objectively definable goals: control of land, economy, population, resources, etc. He will make an assessment of the value (to him) and the cost (to him). The strategy he adopts will minimize the cost to achieve his goal.

The non-rational actor has goals that can't be objectively defined: religious supremacy, racial supremacy, etc. He will adopt a strategy that achieve his goal regardless of cost.

Of course, this is a generalization. People almost always act out of mixed motives. The rational actor is likely to have non-rational motivations, and the non-rational actors will define concrete goals as stepping stones.

Additionally, even a rational actor might adopt a non-rational strategy. i.e. "One of us has to be reasonable, and it isn't going to be me."

If you're interested, check out The Strategy of Conflict by Thomas C. Schelling.

[Tukhachevskii]

I wouldn't take quite the same tack as Tukhachevskii. But going back to your original post, "logical basis" vs. "emotional basis" seems similar to the Games Theory distinction between rational and non-rational actors.

The rational actor has objectively definable goals: control of land, economy, population, resources, etc. He will make an assessment of the value (to him) and the cost (to him). The strategy he adopts will minimize the cost to achieve his goal.

The non-rational actor has goals that can't be objectively defined: religious supremacy, racial supremacy, etc. He will adopt a strategy that achieve his goal regardless of cost.

Of course, this is a generalization. People almost always act out of mixed motives. The rational actor is likely to have non-rational motivations, and the non-rational actors will define concrete goals as stepping stones.

Additionally, even a rational actor might adopt a non-rational strategy. i.e. "One of us has to be reasonable, and it isn't going to be me."

If you're interested, check out The Strategy of Conflict by Thomas C. Schelling.

Agree up to Schelling. I like his work but not that one; game theory de-humanises human decision making IMO. Decision-making is often more about the dimensions of social power, interpellation (or subject position) and satisficing than anything that approximates a "pure" model. Hell just try and get a micro-economist and a macro-economist to try and convince one another of their decision-making models and watch the sparks fly (for added heat try getting them from differant schools of economic thought!) Personally I think the work of Amitai Etzioni is better in this field which see his seminal articles...

Mixed Scanning: A "Third" Approach to Decision-Making

&

Mixed Scanning Revisited

[M-A Lagrange]

Hey,

To clarify your thoughts, I would recommend you to read:
- Mary Kaldor: new and old wars
- Christorpher Clapham: African Guerrilla
- P Collier and A Hoeffer: on economic Causes of Civil wars.
- H L Grossman: A General Equilibrium Model of Insurrections
- Addison, Le Billon, Mushed: On economic motivation of Conflicts in Africa.

They have come with a nomenclature of civil wars/insurgencies that may help you.
This because actually, even in Rwanda, ethnic wars do not exist. That sounds strange but it is more about denial of access to power and economical benefits or development opportunities based on political management of ethnical tensions.
Ethnic wars is just e term we came out to make sure that wars in continent like Africa are not political and can/could be solved easily without having to understand 3000 years of history of people we do not care about.

But I support the idea even if I do think that there are small things to be revised in the general approach.
Actually, I think that it would be more acurate to divide in politicaly or economically protracted conflicts and then in conflict management: ethnic cleasing/religious cleasing/territory control/resource control...

But that's just thoughts from a zombi

[TheCurmudgeon]

I am confused over the meanings you ascribe to "logic" and "emotion". Religions are as much rational and logical as are their believers; I doubt that any member of a religion would base their faith on some kind of Kierkegaardian leap of faith alone; rational justification based upon some kind of logical inference or theoretical structure is always part and parcel of the mix.

Religious beliefs may seem rational but they lead to actions based on commandments from non-human actors or benefits in the next life. I am not just talking about the current struggles with Muslim extremists but also much christian history. Therefore, it is possible that overwelming military force or advantage may not deter the believers from fighting and continuing that fight ad nausium. There are also the combination of religious and political activities as in the thirty year war. The emotional component blunts traditional military advantage unless you are willing to go as far as eliminating the true believers - something akin to genocide - or at least that is how I am seeing it.

Rational (or logical actors) actors often rationalise their emotions based upon pre-existing biases or social stocks of knowledge considered true discursively but which objectiviely may be false (of course, any objective criteria are suspect too, anthropocentrically speaking).

They may rationalize their emotions but it is the emotion that exists first and it is the heart of "why" they fight which is where I want to go. You either start with an emotional struggle, as in the first intifada, or you must entreat the passion of the people, as was done in the First World War. I doubt you would have found Palestinians and Israelis playing soccer on the Eid holiday. Where the conflict is based on emotions I would suggest that the settlement of the struggle must address that emotional basis - must satisfy it - or the struggle will just continue.

I also consider struggles of identity as emotional.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Agree up to Schelling. I like his work but not that one; game theory de-humanises human decision making IMO. Decision-making is often more about the dimensions of social power, interpellation (or subject position) and satisficing than anything that approximates a "pure" model. Hell just try and get a micro-economist and a macro-economist to try and convince one another of their decision-making models and watch the sparks fly (for added heat try getting them from differant schools of economic thought!) Personally I think the work of Amitai Etzioni is better in this field which see his seminal articles...

Mixed Scanning: A "Third" Approach to Decision-Making

&

Mixed Scanning Revisited

Thanks for the papers. They both are in line with where I am going.

I usually dislike anything by economists because of their dehumanization. I would like to see an economist explain why slavery is no longer practiced or why anyone other than a farmer or a tradesman in a third world economy would have children - why one Soldier would risk his life for another or for a civilian they have never met and probably will never see again. But I digress ...

[TheCurmudgeon]

Hey,

To clarify your thoughts, I would recommend you to read:
- Mary Kaldor: new and old wars
- Christorpher Clapham: African Guerrilla
- P Collier and A Hoeffer: on economic Causes of Civil wars.
- H L Grossman: A General Equilibrium Model of Insurrections
- Addison, Le Billon, Mushed: On economic motivation of Conflicts in Africa.

They have come with a nomenclature of civil wars/insurgencies that may help you.
This because actually, even in Rwanda, ethnic wars do not exist. That sounds strange but it is more about denial of access to power and economical benefits or development opportunities based on political management of ethnical tensions.
Ethnic wars is just e term we came out to make sure that wars in continent like Africa are not political and can/could be solved easily without having to understand 3000 years of history of people we do not care about.

But I support the idea even if I do think that there are small things to be revised in the general approach.
Actually, I think that it would be more acurate to divide in politicaly or economically protracted conflicts and then in conflict management: ethnic cleasing/religious cleasing/territory control/resource control...

But that's just thoughts from a zombi

Thanks for the books. I looked at some stuff by P Collier and A Hoeffer but I thought the data set they used was too restrictive. I also thought they were biased from the start against the idea of a non-economic reason for any conflict. These ideas probably work well in resource-rich but desperately poor countries but I don't think they can be generalized to all conflicts.

The economist is always working with the rational actor. Therefore their interpretations will work for logical struggles, but I don't see them as being helpful explaining emotional struggles.

[M-A Lagrange]

The economist is always working with the rational actor. Therefore their interpretations will work for logical struggles, but I don't see them as being helpful explaining emotional struggles.

Can you precise what emotional struggle are. Give an example?

[Tukhachevskii]

Religious beliefs may seem rational but they lead to actions based on commandments from non-human actors or benefits in the next life. I am not just talking about the current struggles with Muslim extremists but also much christian history. Therefore, it is possible that overwelming military force or advantage may not deter the believers from fighting and continuing that fight ad nausium. There are also the combination of religious and political activities as in the thirty year war. The emotional component blunts traditional military advantage unless you are willing to go as far as eliminating the true believers - something akin to genocide - or at least that is how I am seeing it.


They may rationalize their emotions but it is the emotion that exists first and it is the heart of "why" they fight which is where I want to go. You either start with an emotional struggle, as in the first intifada, or you must entreat the passion of the people, as was done in the First World War. I doubt you would have found Palestinians and Israelis playing soccer on the Eid holiday. Where the conflict is based on emotions I would suggest that the settlement of the struggle must address that emotional basis - must satisfy it - or the struggle will just continue.

I also consider struggles of identity as emotional.

I am not entirely sure the 2st intifada was an emotional struggle. Its immeidate cause or trigger may have been emotionally induced but it was IMO hardly an uprising over an "emotional" issue; the issue itself was as rationally defined and framed as the Israeli case regardless of how emotionally invested the participants were to that issue/ yes the issue was an emotional one but it was not based on emotion (if you get my drift; again definitions are important here).

I agree that acting on beliefs that are rationalised using foundational knowledge that is ultimately unverifiable/testable/disprovable is an issue but, again, I doubt that has anything to do with emotions (unless I have misunderstood how you define emotions as opposed to beliefs).

My problem is that you appear, to me at least, to be suggesting a decision-making spectrum with rational (or, Weberian) on the one side and emotional (or psychological/ pathological/ psychosomatic) on the other. I would agree that there is a spectrum, in ideal typical terms, that falls between rational or irrational but I doubt that emotions can be so determined. Is, for instance, the sense of injustice irrational? Or is it an emotion derived from an appraisal, however rational that may be, of an existing state of affairs interpreted (or perhaps even rationalised) in a particular light (i.e., we are the underclass/disspossed/moztazaffin)? I suppose what I'm asking is...can you really segregate the emotional part of the human psyche and declare that it operates on a plane beyond the reach of reason/rationality.

Are struggles over identity really about emotions? Yes, if you are deploying somekind of Maslow-type ontological security framework in which social ties are part and parcel of a persons sense of security. But, OTOH, what about access to resources, political influence, the kind of world/state one wants to live in? Are these "emotional" issues? In Blighty for instance, I live in an area where large numbers of Polish migrants live/occupy and are claiming benefits (housing, unemployment, etc) that should only really be accorded to citizens but which, thanks to the EU, we have to provide them on the basis of reciprocity (yeah, like there are Brits in Poland reciviing benefits ammounting to £10 a week as opposed to the UK); makes a mockery of the "free movement iof labour". The Gov wants to reduce our deficit but isn't mentioning the £200 million+ being forked out on EU migrants (not limited to Poles) and instead is cutting UK public services (that's not even counting the so-called asylum seekers-actually great storytellers-, "students", etc.). Because of that Britons may will lose out in terms of healthcare, education, or even public saftey (i.e., police cuts). Is that an emotional issue? If so, count me emotional.

Please don't take my comments as anything other than (attempted) constructive criticism. The issue you are struggling with is a worthy and difficult one and I for one don't envy you.

I've got a feeling the above post qualifies for the SW worst writing contest!

[William F. Owen]

Sorry to sound like a Curmudgeon, but Thucydides talked about fear, honour, interest, and Clausewitz observed the trinity of passion, reason and chance.

Policy is made up by people. They are emotional. War is a human activity. Humans are complicated.

[Tukhachevskii]

Sorry to sound like a Curmudgeon, but Thucydides talked about fear, honour, interest, and Clausewitz observed the trinity of passion, reason and chance.

Policy is made up by people. They are emotional. War is a human activity. Humans are complicated.

Wholeheartedly aggree. But, what are people passionate about? What is it that they fear? What do we mean by honour? I am not disputing that these are causes or factors in war but rather than they can be separated from one another into neat ideal types that each act as sufficient causes rather than necessary ones (if you catch my drift). CvC's excellent trinity is instructive in that like the Trinity of the Church they are interdependant and cause each other. You can't just take Passion away from the other two, for instance, because it just wouldn't make sense.

I also agree with Thuykidides but are they immdiate triggers or underlying causes and if so how do they relate to politics/war as a whole. One of Alexander's reasons for invading Persia was the desecration of a temple and the dishonour felt by Greeks that Barbarian's should do that and get away with it. But is that a knee-jerk (emotional) reaction or was it merely the trigger for something else, a set of beliefs rationally and logically formulated. I.E., the concept of Greek superiority over Barbarians (or Civilisation, and what it means to bve civilised, vs Barabarism); the acceptance in the first place that fighting for the sake of regaining honour is a rational and not irrational means of rwegaining one's honour (in terms of warfighting norms and laws of warfare).