IMO carl is generally right. It is very hard to use Strategy and stuff against Psychos!
IMO carl is generally right. It is very hard to use Strategy and stuff against Psychos!
We continue to perpetuate the myth that we can address underlying issues for all things. It is definitely worth addressing as many symptoms as holistically as possible, but the fact remains we don't have a cure for mental illness, stricter gun controls may have a limited impact in select cases (but we'll never know when it works), guards at schools "may" work sometimes, etc. I suspect the government will aggressively pursue improvements and should, but we'll still mourn losses to these type of hideous crimes in the future. The reality is a lot of the so called underlying issues that drive people to act this way are well beyond our control.
The four above Posts are pretty well correct.
Can't guard against nut cases with ANY Strategy; the NRA missed a chance to be part of the solution sez this Endowment Member, Slap and Bill as always add common sense. This isn't going away, the media does more harm than good and the fact that most the recent crowd of shooters were big time gamers isn't a strategic pivot...
I take a unique perspective on strategy (I find how unique this is as I deal with others who blend the word into their job titles with no apparent impact on it actually affecting the jobs they do, or with no particular training, experience or aptitude for strategic thought)
Some thoughts:
1. on "Root Causes" vs. "Energy Sources": Most things have roots of some sort, and many things have common aspects in their roots. But roots are below the surface and therefore impossible to see and hard to assess. Better, perhaps, to think in terms of "energy sources." Do not ask "what are the root causes" as this will spark knee jerk responses on complexity, impossibility, difference of opinion, etc. Instead look for and discuss what energy sources might be at work driving the particular activity one is concerned about.
2. One key way Strategy and Planning are the same: Like planning, it is not having a strategy that is important (most strategies are, IMO, vague, highly biased documents of questionable value; while most plans are overly detailed guidelines for some program of tactics with little connection to truly solving a problem in any kind of enduring way); but rather it is the process of thinking about a problem in holistic and fundamental ways to better understand the energy sources behind it that is important. Too often we skip this step, and either just go with what the boss or some "expert" feels, or we take a doctrinal answer off the shelf and dive straight into a hasty plan followed by a long, frustrating program of engagement.
3. Thinking about questions is often more important than knowledge of answers. I admit, I sometimes state what I currently think in far too certain of terms. That is a flaw I am working on. But I also abandon concepts when necessary and evolve them continuously as this is all part of thinking. Once one "knows" the answer they are almost certainly wrong. The military is a culture that prioritizes knowledge and action far more highly than understanding and thought. Nature of the beast. There is a time when action is critical, but most times we could use a lot less smoke and noise and a little more pause and think.
So, do not presume one can find the "root cause" of excessive gun violence and mass murder such as this recent event. But do resist the urge to knee-jerk action and pause to think about it holistically and in ways that force one to step outside their particular paradigm to do so. Identify some energy sources and considers ways to disconnect from or to turn down those sources. To just put armed guards in every school and to put greater restrictions on guns is the same type of senseless, symptomatic approach we applied to 9/11. Have we learned nothing? We cannot simply cling to things we do not want to change while generating powerful programs to guard against and attack the products of those things. We must evolve. But first we must think.
Last edited by Bob's World; 12-22-2012 at 12:57 PM.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
Posted by Bob's World
This statement comes across as extremely arrogant. All struggle with both strategy and planning for a wide range of reasons. Plans are flawed largely due to our doctrinal process for writing them and the expected formats driven by JOPES. Furthermore commanders are seldom engaged in the planning process, so their impact are often nil or at best minimal. The fact is DOD is more focused on fill in the blank products that add up to a plan (product) they can put on a shelf than a plan they can actually operationalize. I think an argument can be made that those trained to do planning/strategy or actually handicapped by their training.I take a unique perspective on strategy (I find how unique this is as I deal with others who blend the word into their job titles with no apparent impact on it actually affecting the jobs they do, or with no particular training, experience or aptitude for strategic thought)
As for strategy, our nation will continue to struggle with it until we have a functional interagency process; however, you assume incorrectly in my view that you have unique insights that others don't, and you assume some things aren't happening because you're not aware of it. In our system the military doesn't do what you often recommend, but it is being done by others (admittedly often executed poorly and rarely synched, and military activities often don't support strategic objectives, etc.). More people get strategy than you give credit for, but the system doesn't facilitate its execution. If you want to see our nation blossom strategically, then direct your energies at fixing the broken system. Until then good ideas will be nothing more than good ideas.
Root causes are generally readily apparent in my opinion, but can't be fixed. Causes are often just that, causes, and are something that can be repaired with our current level of knowledge. I surfaced the energy concept years ago on SWJ, and argued when we put more energy into a system we'll get an equal reaction (unless we apply overwhelming energy to a military problem), which is why small footprints for enduring operations, and short duration for large operations are generally best. "When" the root cause can't be addressed we scope the mission to address the threat and minimize the potential of creating other problems. A strategist addresses the problems that can be solved and is wise enough not to waste national resources on the problems that can be solved.1. on "Root Causes" vs. "Energy Sources": Most things have roots of some sort, and many things have common aspects in their roots. But roots are below the surface and therefore impossible to see and hard to assess. Better, perhaps, to think in terms of "energy sources." Do not ask "what are the root causes" as this will spark knee jerk responses on complexity, impossibility, difference of opinion, etc. Instead look for and discuss what energy sources might be at work driving the particular activity one is concerned about.
Select text, right click, hit paste repeatedly, and you effectively captured the history of both our foreign and domestic policies. It just isn't the boss, but often what the media drives the boss to focus on, because the media (gun violence) will describe the problem to the public and the public will want that problem (even if it is defined incorrectly) solved.2. One key way Strategy and Planning are the same: Like planning, it is not having a strategy that is important (most strategies are, IMO, vague, highly biased documents of questionable value; while most plans are overly detailed guidelines for some program of tactics with little connection to truly solving a problem in any kind of enduring way); but rather it is the process of thinking about a problem in holistic and fundamental ways to better understand the energy sources behind it that is important. Too often we skip this step, and either just go with what the boss or some "expert" feels, or we take a doctrinal answer off the shelf and dive straight into a hasty plan followed by a long, frustrating program of engagement.
3. Thinking about questions is often more important than knowledge of answers. I admit, I sometimes state what I currently think in far too certain of terms. That is a flaw I am working on. But I also abandon concepts when necessary and evolve them continuously as this is all part of thinking. Once one "knows" the answer they are almost certainly wrong. The military is a culture that prioritizes knowledge and action far more highly than understanding and thought. Nature of the beast. There is a time when action is critical, but most times we could use a lot less smoke and noise and a little more pause and think.Again this comes across as arrogant and misinformed. You are confusing a public statement by the NRA with government strategy. The government TF groups working this now at the national level emphasized the importance of a fresh and holistic look. Once again you are pointing to yourself as the only one who gets this, yet the reality is the vast majority of our government officials get this. They also get the real world limitations that will limit their courses of action. You already demonstrated bias by writting off the potential value of putting an armed guard in schools as a temporary or enduring tactic to help mitigate future attacks, which surely are coming. Very opinionated, but not supported by any facts. All options need to be on the table, as you said above there are times to take action and this may be one of them, on the other hand it may not.So, do not presume one can find the "root cause" of excessive gun violence and mass murder such as this recent event. But do resist the urge to knee-jerk action and pause to think about it holistically and in ways that force one to step outside their particular paradigm to do so. Identify some energy sources and considers ways to disconnect from or to turn down those sources. To just put armed guards in every school and to put greater restrictions on guns is the same type of senseless, symptomatic approach we applied to 9/11. Have we learned nothing? We cannot simply cling to things we do not want to change while generating powerful programs to guard against and attack the products of those things. We must evolve. But first we must think.
You would be more convincing if you toned down the I'm smartest cat in the world language, and it wouldn't be that hard to do if you actually listened to what others are saying. All of us have the same struggles.
Have you any course of action to suggest?Originally Posted by Bob's World
Lots of people out there thinking, and lots of proposals, but I'm not seeing anything terribly compelling. Given that we're dealing with a tiny number of deeply disturbed individuals, I'm not sure we're going to accomplish much by looking for root causes or energy sources, which are likely to be different in each case.
Better mental health care is desirable certainly, but even mental health professionals admit that they cannot reliably predict who may be involved in these events. My concern when we discuss greater alertness or anticipation on the mental health side is that kids that just happen to be a little strange (there are many of them) may be stigmatized as potential mass murderers, which is going to mnake already difficult lives even harder. Aside from being unfair to those individuals, that could provoke precisely the behavior we seek to avoid.
Those with pre-existing biases against guns and video games will have predictable suggestions, but I personally see few solutions there.
I don't have any good ideas, and I'm not seeing many I think are good. I think it would be great if the identities and histories of those involved could be kept out of the media completely, but realistically I can't see how that is to be done.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
"Cops in Schools" - Clinton, Bush II & Obama Admins
The "Cops in Schools" projects (plural; a number of different pilot projects developed) came to life because of President Clinton's Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, as part of "Community Oriented Policing Services" (COPS).
According to the Sep 2000 AG's Report to Congress:
See p.18 pdf: COPS in Schools was initially awarded (Oct 1998) $294.4 million (Salary/benefits costs over $125,000 for a 3-year period).p.12 pdf
COPS has been at the forefront of one of the most pressing issues facing our country today – violence in our nation's schools. Through its COPS in Schools program, COPS has funded the addition of over 2,600 officers in our nation's schools. These school resource officers are partnering with students, teachers, and parents to become an important part of the fabric of the daily school environment.
The program continued into the Bush II Admin with a 2005 258-page guide, A Guide to Developing, Maintaining, and Succeeding With Your School Resource Officer Program - Practices From the Field for Law Enforcement and School Administration. E.g., p.116
Obviously, there is much more in the 2005 Guide from Bush II.Finally, programs may wish to consider providing training in other areas addressed in COPS in School trainings, including:
- community policing in the schools (e.g., the SRO as a community liaison and problem solver),
- youth culture and diversity (e.g., the challenge of school bullying), and
- promoting mental health in schools, including intervening with at-risk students (e.g., detecting early signs of trouble).
The website for the Obama Admin's version of "COPS" appears as I write this. I was especially interested in "The Latest Information on Community Policing"; but alas, after going there, I found of material interest to me only "Campus Safety":
So, there is some current Federal LE emphasis on "higher education" safety.With over 15 million students and several million more faculty and staff at U.S. institutions of higher education, it is not surprising that campus safety is a field of great interest within community policing. That is why the COPS Office provides a range of resources to help administrators and security personnel create safe and secure environments on our nation's colleges and universities.
The Scope of the Problems
Security services on the nation's campuses vary considerably in size, role, authority, and quality. They include full-service police departments, private security operations, contractual services, and more. Campus police departments also vary greatly in how they relate to and share information with local and state public safety agencies.
In light of tragic violent events on several campuses, more than 20 institutional, state, professional association, and governmental reports have recommended that colleges and universities develop and implement threat assessment and management tools to enhance campus safety. The COPS Office offers a variety of resources aimed at helping the campus public safety field address these and many other issues.
COPS programs focused on institutions of post-secondary education have included the 2004 National Summit on Campus Public Safety hosted by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Community Policing Institute, the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement's Fellowship Program and Accreditation Pilot, the United Negro College Fund Special Programs Corporation's Campus-Community Policing Partnership Program and, most recently, the Margolis Healy and Associates Campus Threat Assessment training seminars.
However, in the publications, I scored more success re: school safety (at the secondary and primary levels). Thus, we have 2009 COPS Secure Our Schools Grant Owner’s Manual (SOS):
and, 2010 Assigning Police Officers to Schools:Abstract: Provides funding to municipalities to assist with the development of school safety resources. SOS funding will allow recipients the opportunity to establish and enhance a variety of school safety equipment and/or programs to encourage the continuation and enhancement of school safety efforts within their communities.
Exactly what the present status of this program is = ? to me. Is it funded, defunct, etc. ?Abstract: Nearly half of all public schools have assigned police officers, commonly referred to as school resource officers (SRO's) or education officers. Assigning Police Officers to Schools summarizes the typical duties of SROs, synthesizes the research pertaining to their effectiveness, and presents issues for communities to bear in mind when considering the adoption of an SRO model.
This little backgrounder may help in reading through the extreme left and right wing posts on this specific topic.
Regards
Mike
PS: I thought it a bit humorous to see an argument develop on the application of doctrinal (and non-doctrinal) military strategy and the military planning process to what is such a basic local domestic political question. Well, what the hell !; this is a military site and it's the holiday season - so, go to it.
I fall back to where I began in post #6. A call to look at the problem holistically and to not leap to any program of activities designed to simply mitigate or prevent the obvious symptoms. There are many factors coming together within the context of American history and culture to feed this problem. We could begin that analysis by building a list of as many of the factors as possible, and then working to backtrack each of those, both independently and in the context of how they interrelate with each other in a effort to better understand how we got to where we are, and then also how to better get to where we want to be.
I believe that both the 1st and 2nd amendments play critical roles in keeping a healthy balance of power between those who govern and those who are governed; but recent trends have been to increasingly remove restrictions on the first, while increasingly place restrictions on the second. We tend to think of these amendments in isolation, or at least not in the context of why they were created in the first place. The result is that we are out of balance. We need to find a balance across these important rights that is tuned to the overall mission.
We need to see this trend of these tragic attacks as a powerful metric that the health of our society is trending in the wrong direction. We overly focus on the individuals who act out. We can't prevent individuals from acting out, but we can look to ways to address the trends in society as a whole. This very thread is named in the context of the individual, the "lone wolf." That is tactical thinking: How do I stop the lone wolf. I think strategic thinking would be: how do I change this trend in the society as a whole.
The approach to the attacks of 9/11 share this same flaw. We focus overly on how do we "defeat, disrupt, deny" organizations such as AQ, rather than on how do we better understand and address the trends in society that are fueling the rise of such organizations.
The tactical approach provides immediate gratification of action, and also allows us to not have to take responsibility for how we have all contributed to the conditions that feed the problem. It enables the same type of avoidance of personal (or societal) responsibility that one sees in people wrestling with addiction.
We all want better answers, but first I think we need to spend more time working on getting to better questions.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
Bill,
I don't claim to be, nor do I think I am smarter than others who work in "strategy" related fields. I claim only that I think about thing differently than most, and that I tend to spend more time attempting to sort out why things are the way they are in a quest to find insights to offer to guide the efforts of the decision makers above me.
Most strategists focus on identifying and cataloging lists of things that are, and then applying against those lists the framework of guidance from their own boss and bosses higher in the command structure. This is important, but is the science of strategy. What can I measure, what have I been told to do, how do I apply that at my level. This is objectively assessable.
What I am talking about is the art of strategy. What does one understand about the things going on around them, how does that make them think about the guidance they have received, and what recommendations or questions does that suggest to inform how everyone can get to a better place at the least possible cost and with the lowest likelihood of negative consequences.
I don't think we prioritize the art of strategy as highly as we should, nor do I think we attempt to identify early and nurture over time that type of artistic talent in the US military.
Instead we seem to think that once one achieves a certain rank or educational degree, or is assigned to a headquarters commanded by a person possessing a certain number of stars that one is automatically "strategic." That, IMO, is "arrogant."
We are, too often, the very type of "intelligent fool" as discussed by Mr. Einstein below. I too often count myself within that number of intelligent fools. The only difference in me is that I actively seek to avoid that natural tendency that Einstein described. I realize sometimes that makes others uncomfortable. Just shut up and color, right? There is a comfort in following orders and applying tactics with vigor and effectiveness. We have become too comfortable in that regard. We need to start trying to make ourselves uncomfortable, as that is what leads to discovery and growth.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
I don't see the murderous actions of mostly deranged young men as a metric of anything other than a trend among deranged young men. As frightening and disturbing as these things are, they are still the actions of very isolated individuals. There is nothing society wide about it. Something like murder rates as a whole going up and down says something about society. These don't because they are individuals taking advantage of some fairly obvious vulnerabilities.
Individuals can be prevented from acting out. That is done every day in prisons and families and everywhere. Individual humans aren't a like cells in a Portuguese man 'o war, each an animal in its own right but acting as a whole. Individuals humans aren't Borg parts. They are individuals and make individual decisions. If they are likely to get frustrated or thumped, they probably won't act in a way that will get them frustrated or thumped. Getting thumped hurts.
It is nice to think about the big picture but what is the object of the big picture thinking? It is to stop those little picture things that hurt. If short sighted superficial tactical things reduce greatly mass shootings, then the object is accomplished.
An object of things done after 9-11 was to prevent attacks of a similar magnitude from happening in the US again. That has been (knock on wood that it continues) accomplished. That isn't a flawed approach. It has worked.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
This PPT made me pause for thought
Last week I attended a closed academic and practitioner conference on Lone Actor Terrorism; officialdom dislikes the phrase Lone Wolves and amidst the presentations was an excellent one by Professor Mark Hamm, from Indiana State University 'Radicalization Model of Lone Wolf Terrorism: The Prevention of Six Cases'.
I have obtained his Powerpoint, with his consent to use it via here, alas it is 5.4Mb so cannot be uploaded, so if you are interested PM me with an email address.
Link to his university mini-bio:https://www.indstate.edu/cas/ccj/ccj...ff/hamm-mark-s
What I found very interesting were the figures on attacks and that there were several historical attacks, which I'd not heard of - notably a woman stabbing Martin Luther King and a New Yorker bomber who evaded detection for sixteen years whilst he planted thirty-three IEDs. Let alone a Nazi, James Cummings who assembled a "dirty bomb" to set off at Obama's inauguration.
Last edited by davidbfpo; 04-11-2017 at 05:41 PM. Reason: Thread reopened to add this. 36,284v
davidbfpo
Rhetorically, why is that?
A scrimmage in a Border Station
A canter down some dark defile
Two thousand pounds of education
Drops to a ten-rupee jezail
http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg
Not 'Lone Wolves': why?
It certainly was stated at the conference's opening, but Raffaello Pantucci (RUSI who was not there) in December 2014, in a commentary after the Sydney siege, has written with my emphasis in bold:Link:https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...e-actor-attackLone actor (the preference by governments is to not use the term “lone wolf” as it is seen as glorifying) terrorism is not new. Right wing extremists have long liked the idea, drawing back to Cold War thinkers who were keen to prepare America for the possibility of an invading force that would require loyal survivors to take to the hills to wage an undercover insurgency against invaders. Initially developed under the concept of “leaderless resistance” in the 1960s by a US Army Cold Warrior called Ulius Louis Amoss, the ideas were further advanced by a Ku Klux Klan member called Louis Beam in the 1980s. For Beam, the concept of single man (or small cell) fighting units was a perfect way around the need to fight a strong and pervasive state – because there were fewer opportunities for security forces to intercede.
Maybe helpful:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulius_Louis_Amoss
Given the history, which is new to me, perhaps it was seen as best to separate the current description from the past? It does resonate with some ideologically.
Just how a "Lone Wolves" is seen as glorifying escapes me, but in terms of media imagery wolves can be portrayed quite differently, e.g. the film 'Dancing with Wolves'.
davidbfpo
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks