Strategic Narrative

[Bob's World]

Key to remember is that narratives do not create instability. Narratives do not create stability either.

Narratives must be in step with actions to be effective, and are used to facilitate efforts to exploit unstable situations, or to help sustain stable situations.

I think Dayuhan misses the point in my comments above. WE believe the AQ narrative for some bizarre reason, even if the populaces of the region it directly applies to all place it into a context that works for them. God knows how many times I've driven a virtual icepick into my forehead listening to some intel "expert" drone on about one threat narrative or another as if it were carved in stone tablets by the very hand of God. Flashing up big maps showing the boundaries of historic Caliphates with expanding ink blots of where AQ nodes are currently engaging with dissatisfied segments of various populaces. They make it look like maps of WWII and how the German army is advancing across France or Russia, coupled with grim analysis of the dangers of the advancing hordes. Pure theatrical, clueless, yet very dangerous, rhetoric from an intel community that refuses to evolve in their thinking about the type of political instability that gives rise to these populace-based threats.

We need to not just learn how to co-opt and compete more effective narratives of our own, but we must also learn what the actual roles of narratives are in the first place.

Governments need to stop trying to "counter" those who are competing with them for the support of the people. Governments need to stop seeing these competitors as "threats" to simply defeat, as if that solves the problems that give rise to such groups to begin with. Governments need to get off their hands and COMPETE for the support of larger percentages of their total populaces. Too many have relied too long on the support of some small base of populace and either ignored or exploited the rest. Governments need to start playing to the entire house, and not just the front row and the box seats.

[Dayuhan]

Key to remember is that narratives do not create instability. Narratives do not create stability either.

This is true, but they may give some indication of what is causing instability, and what's needed to create stability. Whether the US or any other outside power is in a position to provide what's needed is another question altogether.

There are always many narratives out there, and one danger of basing decisions on interpretation of narratives is that we all too easily choose to interpret the narratives that allow us to arrive at a preferred interpretation.

Governments need to start playing to the entire house, and not just the front row and the box seats.

Probably true, but not something we can do anything about, except to the extent that our government and our populaces are involved.

When "the entire house" is sufficiently divided, "playing to the entire house" may be all but impossible, especially when each side of the house wants control.

[Bob's World]

This is true, but they may give some indication of what is causing instability, and what's needed to create stability. Whether the US or any other outside power is in a position to provide what's needed is another question altogether.

There are always many narratives out there, and one danger of basing decisions on interpretation of narratives is that we all too easily choose to interpret the narratives that allow us to arrive at a preferred interpretation.



Probably true, but not something we can do anything about, except to the extent that our government and our populaces are involved.

When "the entire house" is sufficiently divided, "playing to the entire house" may be all but impossible, especially when each side of the house wants control.

Just like in the US? Stability does not mean government must make everyone happy, it just means that everyone must feel that they have a fair opportunity given their relative capabilities to acheive their potential in life and to express their concerns with /shape their governance IAW the expectations of their culture.

I do not think it is a healthy trend that American politics have become so very polarized in recent years, and that politicians feel the need to cater to their polar base rather than to the populace as a whole. When I look at the broad areas of "good governance" that tend to be the primary drivers of stability and instability depending on the perceptions of significant populace groups I see where there are major problems in each category even in a country as stable as the US. Every category except the last one of "Trust", with that being the perception of having "trusted, certain and legal means to influence government when one perceives problems in any of the other categories" (Sovereignty, Legitimacy, Justice, Respect). But even in the US such trust was hard-earned and far more fragile than many probably realize. In many countries in has never existed. In many of those there is a growing expectation among evolving populaces for greater influence over governance than they have perhaps ever possessed.

The narratives of the current US President and the current Republican contenders are all dangerously divisive IMO. We need a leader who is dedicated to unifying the country, rather than dividing it. One who speaks to our commonalities rather than to our differences. We too need a new narrative.

But at least we have a system, for now, where the populace sustains adequate control, to overcome the shortfalls of governance. This is the genius contained within the inefficiencies of the American system of governance. Other nations have populaces clamoring for greater control as well, and lack such adaptive mechanisms. If I had one message to share in my own personal narrative it would be:

"Listen to your people, ALL of your people. They are evolving and their expectations of governance are evolving too. Focus on the commonalities of human nature that run through your entire populace rather than on the cultural quirks of your base of power, and find the mechanisms that make sense for your country and your people, not those that make sense to the US or any other external power. Do not give the populace total control or there will be anarchy, but find that balance point and protect it. You will know when you find it, as there will be a general stability that does not rely upon the capacity of ones internal security forces to sustain it, just as you will know when one is missing the mark by the converse of that same metric."

Most countries share a common problem. Governments are made up of politicians and bureaucrats. As a rule, politicians don't take responsibility for the negative effects of their actions, and bureaucrats are dedicated to preserving the status quo of their process. We live in times where process must evolve and where politicians must stand up and admit that it is their own actions and not external factors of ideology or natural fluctuations in economic cycles that drives political instability.

[Tukhachevskii]

...at putting things into words

Western vs Islamic World View conflict

Via the Nautilus Institute website which features a number of tools

[Bob's World]

Interesting slide, but to me it reads like a Western perspective of what the conflicting perspectives are.

For instance, where is the flanking attacking arrow coming out of the Western Cloud? Why does it capture the political unrest in the Middle East totally in the context of "Jihad"? In fact, this looks like a product that other directorates at the HQ where I work might have produced...

[Dayuhan]

Just like in the US?

No, not like the US. Even in its most polarized form the US demonstrates a basic consensus on political process and form of government. That's markedly absent in most conflict environments. What you're not accepting is the existence of factionalized environments where absolute power and the ability to suppress rivals with coercive force is the only acceptable outcome for each faction.

If I had one message to share in my own personal narrative it would be:

"Listen to your people, ALL of your people. They are evolving and their expectations of governance are evolving too..."

How would you apply this in an environment where multiple factions have minimal irreducible demands over which they are willing to fight, and those demands are completely incompatible?

Not all problems emerge from people evolving faster than government. Often populaces are not showing any particular inclination to evolve, and remain stuck in the us/them win/lose paradigm that's kept societies conflicted for generations.

Of course our own personal narratives are fascinating to us, but no matter what their virtues they are hardly relevant to others, and we've no way of persuading or compelling others to adopt them.

[KingJaja]

I am not an expert on this matter, but the appeal of AQ or Boko Haram has less to do with lofty rhetoric but the promise of better government, social services, just laws etc.

The US usually finds itself aligned with corrupt and incompetent politicians - TFG in Somalia, Karzai in Afghanistan, Saleh in Yemen and the Nigerian bunch. This association and the unalloyed support for Israel is what usually has Muslim youth up in arms against the US, not AQ. AQ merely capitalises on that.

But even if we understand this, is there anything we can do about it? The answer is no.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by KingJaja

I am not an expert on this matter, but the appeal of AQ or Boko Haram has less to do with lofty rhetoric but the promise of better government, social services, just laws etc.

I agree that poor governance contributes, but also believe it is grossly over simplistic to narrow down problems to one underlying cause. There are many locations where there are poor governance and no insurgency. In the case of AQ it requires an underlying condition (normally poor governance, or a foreign occupation) and a Muslim population, because their exploiting religion as much as poor governance.

The US usually finds itself aligned with corrupt and incompetent politicians

I don't disagree, and this is definitely a topic worth exploring in more depth, because it is often the reason we fail in our interventions, even though our intentions are good, and we clearly have overwhelming military and economic might. Sort of, kind of indicates the moral issues are more decisive than might, and narratives that attempt to justify an inept and corrupt government are almost guarunteed to fail.

We choose these relationships because they are convenient, and of course a corrupt politician can be bought and influenced by us and others. Unconventional warfare of the years has been successful in the shortrun, but often fails in the long run based on convenient relations, much like the U.S. putting Mafia members in charge of key positions of Italy to help "stabilize" it as they "liberated" Italy. To avoid this we would have to slow the train down and seek to understand before we engage, and we would also have to dump those that supported us if they turned out to be corrupt. I suspect neither will happen.

On the other hand, you need to also add to your comment that the government the U.S. ousted was just as corrupt, or that the insurgent force attempting to take over the government are just as corrupt.

[KingJaja]

Bill,

I agree that folks like Saddam and Gaddafi were corrupt, but at least they could keep the peace. When the US comes into situations like this, it usually empowers a set of corrupt but weak leaders - leaders who are just as corrupt but are unable to maintain security.

Was Saddam less competent than Malaki? Was Gaddafi less competent than whoever is running Libya?

Most people tend to worry more about feeding their kids, getting them ahead in life and ensuring that justice is served. Lofty ideals like democracy never meant much to my grandmother.

It is these kinds of gaps that Al Qaeda or their imitators love to exploit.

As you know, I come from Nigeria. Actually Nigeria has two insurgencies raging on - Niger Delta and Boko Haram. Both are partly attributable to poor governance.

What you might not know (as Western news media tends to focus on one story at a time) is that there is an epidemic of kidnappings in the South East (outside the Niger Delta). There is also an organisation MASSOB - Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (does that sound familiar?) that is growing in prominence in that part of Nigeria.

For example, MASSOB was/is heavily involved in transporting and resettling South-Easterners who were displaced by the Boko Haram crisis. They are doing the social welfare bit now, they'll get to other bits in future.

Bill, I have lived in Nigeria/Africa long enough to know that poor governance leads to insurgencies over time. As recently as 1993, I went to Port Harcourt (the heart of the Niger Delta) with my dad. It was a peaceful town, but the behaviour of the police and the glaring differences between the living standards of Oil and Gas company employees and the locals pointed to trouble in future - and it came.

Someone said that COIN in Afghanistan is all about out-governing the Taliban. That should seem easy enough, but when Mullah Omar controlled large swathes of Afghanistan, his word was law. There was a judicial process that led to predictable results, crime was at a minimum and Afghanistan was a much safer place.

The same applies to Al Shabab and the Islamic courts system. For the brief period they held sway, they managed to create order out of chaos.

It is these popular memories - i.e. our local/ethnic/religious militia/organisation can provide social services, avenge wrong doing by heavy-handed security services (and the US military) and give us a sense of self-worth after decades of real or percieved marginalisation/intimidation that make these organisations so difficult to fight.

If you square this up with America's reputation for creating even more chaos out of chaos when the US Military is involved, immediately you realise there is a very SERIOUS problem.