Nation-Building Elevated

[jmm99]

from MA

2. As to "lead": "ability, knowledge and character"
Not sure I completely got your point.

3. As to everything: "work together" (gung ho).

Definitively but if we do not want to end up in a crazy trotskyist no one take decision stuff (Just try to work with Medecins Du Monde one day…) we need a board and some decision making process.

These points tie together. "Lead" references "leadership" and who takes the "lead". Unless you want to assign formal grades (I want a super-grade ) and create a formal pecking order, the "lead" process has to revolve around the "ability, knowledge and character" of those contributing to the process. The corollary of that is that individual egos have to be put aside (honest, I'll try); and we all have to really listen and try to understand what others are saying (gung ho).

As to a board and some decision making process, I think that would develop as those interested keep with it, and areas of subject matter expertise will also develop. I'd also expect that many (hopefully) will feel called, but that fewer will end up feeling chosen. So, no surprise if there is a high attrition rate, which we see on a regular basis at SWC.

Would we then step off into total chaos ? I'll posit that we would not because most people here are not that chaotic. However, if we do, that itself would prove something - and there is always room for adjustments.

The model, as I see it, is more "stochastic" than "deterministic", as those terms are used by Steve's post here:

SWJ/SWC could be described as a digital community frequented by stakeholders in the nuts and bolts of America’s day-to-day efforts to make the world a better place. The demographics include experts and students of the myriad facets of security, economics, and governance from various lands. Pacing daily changes, ‘best of breed’ ideas, concepts, and Tactics Techniques and Procedures (TTP) are examined and debated in a non-hierarchal, open, Socratean manner. The community is an example of the results of democratization and globalization of information and knowledge, in that transactional costs associated with gathering and analyzing information are very low and flash mobs of stakeholders can form, as time and resources permit, for 24-hour analysis of interesting/vexing problems. The quality of output from the SWJ/SWC knowledge model varies (trending towards stochastic) as a factor of the educational, experiential, and motivational levels of the participants.

The USG could be described as a physical and digital community comprised, primarily, of paid stakeholders in the nuts and bolts of America’s day-to-day efforts to make the world a better place. It uses a more common, closed model of vertical and hierarchical integration (with high transaction costs) in which information gathering and analysis is, more often than not, primarily limited to in house personnel specialized in the myriad facets of security, economics, and governance (among many other topics). Standardized training, and educational experiences are part of an attempt to provide a regulated and dependable (trending towards deterministic) output from stakeholders.

Thus, an experiment not based on the USG norm.

-----------------------------
Wilf, your questions are harder - but are core:

OK, but...

a.) What's the policy?

b.) Why and how will we use violence or threat of violence to make it happen?

c.) Do we understand how the use of threaten use of violence in support of policy may change the policy?

I thought about some of what you say last nite. It didn't keep me awake all nite, but quiet allows thinking.

I posited, not the situation we have here at SWC, but some real world reality where there are two components:

1. A stochastic-oriented virtual network (maybe a board of directors, maybe not) that looks at problems and solutions, etc., and connects with ...

2. A real-live field force on the ground that implements the solutions with feedback to the virtual network, etc.

Any resemblence to a certain unfriendly organization is purely coincidental .

Now, in the real world, we would have violence (basic security involves either violence or the threat of violence). And, here, a virtual community does have constraints, if it is actually linked to a live field force. Those (at the least) are the various "Neutrality Acts", which would not look kindly on a private group delving into the violence arena in reality (Max Weber and all that).

So, I guess MA's "do no harm" has to be a basic precept if there is any real linkage to the field - as to which in post #29 Steve put a "?":

from SB
Contact is established with a 'neutral' Afghan (Ashraf Ghani ? mentioned in an article from today's edition of Wired )...tricky, but doable.

very tricky and lots of legal to consider.

However, if the site is totally virtual, then violence, solutions to violence and the implications of Wilf's last 2 questions would be fully open to discussion - as they are every day at SWC.

As to the question of "policy" (Politik), I'd posit that that would depend on the location of the adopted village - and would require us to take on the role of the "decision-makers". I expect that would be an interesting discussion.

Regards

Mike

[M-A Lagrange]

These points tie together. "Lead" references "leadership" and who takes the "lead". Unless you want to assign formal grades (I want a super-grade ) and create a formal pecking order, the "lead" process has to revolve around the "ability, knowledge and character" of those contributing to the process. The corollary of that is that individual egos have to be put aside (honest, I'll try); and we all have to really listen and try to understand what others are saying (gung ho).

As to a board and some decision making process, I think that would develop as those interested keep with it, and areas of subject matter expertise will also develop. I'd also expect that many (hopefully) will feel called, but that fewer will end up feeling chosen. So, no surprise if there is a high attrition rate, which we see on a regular basis at SWC.

Let say, in a full virtual world: it's the field that will decide what is applicable or not. (Me too I want a super grade, below army marshal, marechal d'armee en francais dans le texte, I'm against)

If it goes real as describe below:

1. A stochastic-oriented virtual network (maybe a board of directors, maybe not) that looks at problems and solutions, etc., and connects with ...

2. A real-live field force on the ground that implements the solutions with feedback to the virtual network, etc.

Any resemblence to a certain unfriendly organization is purely coincidental .

This is what I was thinking about talking about decision making system. For me this is not limited to use of violence as I integrate non military action in the scope of security (with a big holistic "S"). And as I see security as a cross cutting issue in a context as Astan (cf; the Do No Harm approach).

Making it real?:

very tricky and lots of legal to consider.

Tricky but not impossible, if no challenge: no fun.
The best approach, according to me for a start, is something looking like NGO status. It's quite "simple", allows to access funds "easily" (Government, USAID, DFID... large range of donors) and provides a legal status less complexe than corporates and companies. (And is less taxed)

M-A

[Surferbeetle]

OK, but...

a.) What's the policy?
b.) Why and how will we use violence or threat of violence to make it happen?
c.) Do we understand how the use of threaten use of violence in support of policy may change the policy?

Wilf,

We have discussed the inseparable trinity of security, governance, and economics across a number of threads here at SWC. The Venn diagram for these three individual components always intersects, although I would anticipate that there would be appreciable differences in the amounts of intersection when comparing models of Haiti with Afghanistan – shorthand – the spectrum of looting/civil unrest to combat.

What are your preferences as to the location to be examined in this experiment? Open source information concerning Haiti is certainly easier to find than for Afghanistan, there are more speakers/readers of French on this board than Pashto, and we would have a better chance of plugging into actual on the ground information about Haiti generated by CA/CAG and NGO’s than in Afghanistan.

Whatever location we develop a consensus on, as to doctrine I will appreciate your analysis via CvC and other references that you may suggest.

As to your three questions, be the security SME and help us to find the right path…

As to doctrine and some other points, and recognizing that we are a herd of cats (but with situational awareness of what the others are saying or trying to say), I'd suggest adopting a few of Evans Carlson's precepts:

1. As to doctrine: "don't obey, think"

2. As to "lead": "ability, knowledge and character"

3. As to everything: "work together" (gung ho).

Mike,

Glad to see that you and I are on the same page. It seems that we all use a variety of approaches depending upon situation (METT-TC) and I too would like to try a decentralized network approach to working on this project without the traditional hierarchy. The marketplace/competition of ideas to identify the best way forward is a SWC technique that makes for interesting conversations if nothing else.

In urban studies, the original downtown-centric model log ago gave away to various distributed models as a result of communication/transportation resources that unlocked the walkability constraint. This is more regional than classical cities, and more sophisticated (yet distributed) in its connections and associations built to support dynamic and shifting opportunities/competitive advantages. Oil spot or city-based are confusing---more like MA's linking islands where and when you can.

My version of targeting places we can be successful with least effort and most underlying potential (rather than just accidental involvement in places of high conflict) would look at factors like whether there is a big batch of grads in the pipeline before expanding industry. If not, focus more on hand-skill and traditional activities (farming, roadwork, tertiary stuff). Try to find some pattern out of potential areas that can allow prioritization to underlying strategies of encirclement of bad areas.

Steve,

Will showcasing urban planning concepts for this experiment include gravity analysis, using KML language & Google Earth, and civilian GIS capabilities?

A semi-successful SWC Prototype/Proof of Concept built upon easily accessible data would be probably be at least an interesting footnote or paragraph in a book. Wherever we end up geographically focusing upon I suspect it will help in some way towards roughing out a TTP – CA CIM TTP are not where they need to be. This is an interesting website. What are your thoughts about focusing upon water for the project? Agriculture, deforestation, stormwater runoff, water & wastewater treatment seem to have many intersections among planning, law, anthropology, development, engineering, and security…

Let say, in a full virtual world: it's the field that will decide what is applicable or not. (Me too I want a super grade, below army marshal, marechal d'armee en francais dans le texte, I'm against)

This is what I was thinking about talking about decision making system. For me this is not limited to use of violence as I integrate non military action in the scope of security (with a big holistic "S"). And as I see security as a cross cutting issue in a context as Astan (cf; the Do No Harm approach).

The intersection between military and civilian efforts sometimes reminds me of the Edge Effect in ecology…lots of things going on, many opportunities to make a difference. What are your thoughts about the balanced scorecard?

Steve

[William F. Owen]

Wilf,
As to your three questions, be the security SME and help us to find the right path…

Well I am in no way qualified for the job but I'll assume the key requirement it to protect some sort of "activity." - normal life/life, (policy) so explicitly I'd plan for a Security Operation, but with resources to escalate to Combat Operations, within less than 24 hours. (support weapons/assetts - agreed ROE etc)

I'd also want a bit more info before deciding on what sort of posture troops would adopt, but less visible rather than more would seem to be default setting. Visibility and activity in general would scale up or down based on the levels of suppression and reassurance required.

[M-A Lagrange]

Many years ago on Mindanao (the eastern side, not the Muslim area) a foreign aid agency funded a road, which was intended to traverse a quite remote area. The project was sold as a farm-to-market road, though it was generally understood that it would also make it easier for the military to gain access and deny the area to the NPA.

The farmers in the area opposed the road vigorously, sabotaging equipment, shooting at workers, causing all kinds of problems and eventually stalling the project. The foreigners involved couldn't understand it. One of them, almost in tears at the collapse of his project, moaned to me at length over how the farmers were such fools to fall for the commie propaganda, how the road would benefit them, etc etc... it took some doing to get it through his damn fool head that none of those farmers had legal title to the land they were tilling, that they'd been left alone because their land was remote and inaccessible, and that when that road was complete their land would become valuable, and when it became valuable men with guns would come and drive them off it so somebody with money and power could take over. This was the conclusion the farmers had reached, and they were absolutely right.

This is the perfect example for "do no harm" but basically the "what not to do"!
Do No Harm is just an approach that is based on the fact that the aim of humanitarian action is aimed to protect people.
Here we are talking about a Civil Affaires/Development-Humanitarian structure which via internet will provide advices to people on the ground.
In the example proposed by Dayuhan the Do No Harm doctrine tells you that you have to take in consideration the effect of the road on security before looking at the apparent economical benefits.
A good approach would have been to look at the consequences (legal, security…) and first propose to the farmer assistance to get legal ownership of their land (immediate access in exchange of the road can be done with "extremely good willing politicians"), then support their production and transformation technique for them to have a better product to sell… Then support transport (not road: trucks) for them to sell their products and once they were more rich (less poor if you want). And then propose to build a road that they would have support because it would be more economically beneficial than security threat.
Guts guess duration: at the best 2 years before getting the idea of a road in the farmer priorities pipe.
But that's a field driven approach.
For the security: basing a small group of 3 to 5 people with a radio, with open hours for the population to talk to relatives, would have been my first solution. (A pure COIN population centric solution if I may.)

Villages tend to be conservative places. Change can be perceived as a threat, especially if one faction is perceived to be working the situation to drive changes that benefit them. Aid that is delivered without full awareness of internal rivalries and issues can destabilize a situation and provoke conflict.

In development there is an analogy which is often use:
If people use a rope to climb a mountain: do not install an elevator even if it is cheaper, safer and easier. Just build a stair they can use and be secure by keeping their rope in hand.
Took me some years to figure out what it was about but it's damn right. Don't go too fast or too fancy. Just go with the people step by step.

In fact, it was the women of the village. Once the well was put in, their one good excuse to get out of the house to go and interact with other women away from the contol of men at a distant community well had been taken away. Women's centers have been a big hit for this very reason, as they provide a safe place where women can be with other women.

Basic rule: always listen to the women first, especially in countries as Afghanistan. The Pula (Nomadic Muslim/animist tribe in South Sahara) say: the beard always does what the locks are dictating at night…

But we are already discussing virtual problematic of virtual villages through a virtual network…
It's no more SWJ it's the Matrix in action.

So now, about a Le Expérience pilot project:

Several thoughts crossed my mind.

1) First, we said that we are client oriented. So we need to know who our clients are. Civilian (NGO, development agencies…), military (CIMIC, ?...), host government (cf Steve article…), people (local CBO, local authorities…). Once we have figured out who our clients are (They can be NGO + CIMIC + Host Government/research centers), then we will know what kind of network we need: virtual, virtual + field relay…

2) But also we need to figure out what is our target area to build our product.
Many opportunities there: Afghanistan, Haiti… Haiti seems to be a more easy training experiment field than Astan and less deadly if me make mistakes. Also Steve point on French reading is to be taken in account (I'm talking in my name only). My Pashto is at a much lower level than my Klingon for example. (And my Klingon is limited.) But good sources in English are available on Astan. We need to make a choice or to develop a 2 sub products of a 1 main package (virtual community advice for Civil Affaires/Development work + COIN Advices).

3) Then comes the product:

"Digital Civil Affairs/Development Work" is a concept unfamiliar to me... what exactly are we trying to accomplish here? What problem are we trying to solve? Is this a COIN scenario or a sort of virtual Peace Corps small-scale development effort?

This will be clarified once we have figured out what are our clients and the area we want to experiment in. Please see point 2.

4) Finally the means: who when how… the practical/engineering part that needs to be solved out to have the machine working. This includes the doctrine applied, the area of competency…

In resume: define an objective; identify the target; locate it; select a team and baboum!


Mike,

So, we look to 3 levels: funds, coordination and field, don't we ? Indeed, at times, you are the son of a scorpion. And, I thought I was the only one descended from François Villon & La Grosse Margot.

If only I could… I'm dreaming of myself being a deadly breed of Richelieu and Talleyrand… But reality keeps dragging me back to the normal average man that I am.

Steve,

I'll be looking at the links you posted. Some thoughts to be developed late at night on this.

[Dayuhan]

In the example proposed by Dayuhan the Do No Harm doctrine tells you that you have to take in consideration the effect of the road on security before looking at the apparent economical benefits.
A good approach would have been to look at the consequences (legal, security…) and first propose to the farmer assistance to get legal ownership of their land (immediate access in exchange of the road can be done with "extremely good willing politicians"), then support their production and transformation technique for them to have a better product to sell… Then support transport (not road: trucks) for them to sell their products and once they were more rich (less poor if you want). And then propose to build a road that they would have support because it would be more economically beneficial than security threat.
Guts guess duration: at the best 2 years before getting the idea of a road in the farmer priorities pipe.

I think that gut guess is wrong, and I don't think this program would work. There's an important point being missed. When I said that the farmers were resisting because they knew their land would be taken by people with power and money... who do you think those people were? They were the local political powers, of course, and individuals close to them. As soon as they knew the road project would be funded (and well before it was announced) they were already muscling in, acquiring legal rights to land and positioning themselves to profit from the road. The government would never have allowed those farmers to get legal title to the land in question because the people in charge wanted it for themselves.

When you see a miserable status quo enduring without change, the chances are that it's not enduring because people lack initiative, or lack the right machine, or lack infrastructure, or lack capital. People have natural initiative and they will make a way... it may be slower and less efficient than it would be with more resources, but they will make one. When nobody's making a way and the status quo is dragging on and on, there's a pretty good chance that the status quo is dragging on because somebody wants it to. There's a pretty good chance that the somebody in question has both legal power and armed force, and is willing to use that power to slap down initiatives that threaten his dominance or to derail any initiatives that do not promote his interests.

Sometimes the best way to promote development is not to look for ways to help people move forward, but to identify and help remove the obstacles that are holding them back. Of course that gets political, and can get very complicated... but it's tough to promote development apolitically in an environment where the primary obstacles to development are political.

[Surferbeetle]

Sometimes the best way to promote development is not to look for ways to help people move forward, but to identify and help remove the obstacles that are holding them back. Of course that gets political, and can get very complicated... but it's tough to promote development apolitically in an environment where the primary obstacles to development are political.

Top down strategies are part of a solution, but limiting oneself to just one axis of attack or line of operation is similar to investing in just one stock. Good for you if you hit it out of the park, however empirical work on concepts such as efficient market theory, mean variance portfolio theory, capital asset pricing model, value at risk, etc. seem to suggest that there are greater benefits to be had via diversification when problem solving.

From FP, a 22 Jan 2010 post on Tom Rick's blog the Best Defense, Haiti watch (III): A role for retired Special Forces?

By Robert Maguire

Best Defense Haiti correspondent

In 1994/95, following the US-led, UN-sponsored intervention that restored elected government to Haiti after three years of rapacious rule by the Haitian military and its allies, US Special Forces played a critical role throughout the Haitian countryside in restoring order and assisting local officials move forward with the always enormous task of providing services to citizens at the local and municipal levels. Much was written about this, but I recall it most clearly through a documentary produced by CNN called "Guardian Warriors." I recall from that documentary -- which I recorded on a VRC (it was that long ago) and is now stowed away somewhere on video tape -- that small Special Forces units around Haiti were playing a very positive role in this regard -- working with mayors; interfacing with local populations; providing technical and resource assistance. These men (I do not recall seeing any women) were portrayed as sensitive to local people and their culture and were finding ways to work within existing paradigms -- even broken ones. They were also very welcome by the local populations with which they worked.

Tom Rick's also provides a link to an applied GIS website about Haiti.

Wilf,

The GIS website allows one to examine/focus upon security concerns...