What to Know Before You Go

[William F. Owen]

Okay, I will to admit to taking an almost evil glee in playing Socrates, but I'll have to answer your question with another question: "Is Al Qaeda a military in the sense of 'armed forces'?". I have no doubt that they are an "opponent" in the sense that they are "one group [trying to] chang[e] another groups’ perceptions of reality to align with the wishes, desires, preconceptions and perceptions of the first group", but are they "military"?

Well playing Socrates is cool. Playing with Socrates may be problematic!

A Military force is, to my mind defined by action, so when AQ is defending a cave of conducting an ambush, they are a military force requiring military action against them. When they are planting bombs on the subway, they are criminals, requiring Police to counter them.

I don't agree with the idea that one group is trying to change another's perception of reality. I see the purpose of armed action as being to break the will of another, so that he will not resist change. He can have a very accurate perception of what that change may be. EG: You can no longer be a Nazi or support Hezbollah. The only message you are trying to get across is that to do so, will lead to your harm.

What changes peoples perception is - as you suggest - a narrative. That narrative is, I beleive the product of political action. - and only possible once military defeat has taken place.

...and as a novelist, I am extremely interested in narrative and archetypes. Blackfoot is Missing was written using classical myth story structure and archetypes. - BUT... I don't see these narratives as part of military thought, except the military action, as an extension of politics, should not undermine them. - which is what happens with Haditha, Abu Graib, and quite a few others.

[Ron Humphrey]

WM might be on to something ...

[marct]

Hi Wilf,

A Military force is, to my mind defined by action, so when AQ is defending a cave of conducting an ambush, they are a military force requiring military action against them. When they are planting bombs on the subway, they are criminals, requiring Police to counter them.

Okay, if we go by that definition, the Special Forces troops engaged in behind the lines actions are criminals, as are partisans. I could also argue, again based on your definition, that George Washington was a criminal as were all of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence. The point I'm trying to make here is that "actions" are not a thing in and of themselves - they take place in a context of meaning (a point, I should note, that is recognized in most of the English derived legal systems). If we judge solely by actions, then there is no difference between "killing" and "murder".

I don't agree with the idea that one group is trying to change another's perception of reality. I see the purpose of armed action as being to break the will of another, so that he will not resist change. He can have a very accurate perception of what that change may be. EG: You can no longer be a Nazi or support Hezbollah. The only message you are trying to get across is that to do so, will lead to your harm.

It strikes me that you are actually making my point for me . I never said that kinetic operations must be a "reasoned debate" . "Break the will of another"? What is that but soften them up to accept your "solution".

What changes peoples perception is - as you suggest - a narrative. That narrative is, I beleive the product of political action. - and only possible once military defeat has taken place.

Hmmm, I think I'm going to disagree that a military defeat is a necessary condition here. As examples, I'll cite Vietnam and Pyrrhus, but there ae others.

...and as a novelist, I am extremely interested in narrative and archetypes. Blackfoot is Missing was written using classical myth story structure and archetypes. - BUT... I don't see these narratives as part of military thought, except the military action, as an extension of politics, should not undermine them. - which is what happens with Haditha, Abu Graib, and quite a few others.

Your point about undermining narratives is well taken, and it's a good one. Personally, I would argue that the entire concept of "conventional" (as in "conventional warfare") is a narrative, as is rule of law, human rights, etc., etc. (including academic theories ). I think a lot of these narratives underlie military thought. Hmmm, try this for an example - why doesn't the US toss a bunch of nukes into Waziristan? Now, before anyone freaks totally, let me point out that I am not suggesting this at all. I am using it as an example of an underlying (semi-conscious as it were) example of how our perceptions and emotions can be controlled by narratives. Why were nukes used the two times they were dropped and why is it almost impossible for us to even think about using them now?

Anyway, I'm off watching the US primaries. Some inetersting results coming out now.

Marc

[William F. Owen]

Okay, if we go by that definition, the Special Forces troops engaged in behind the lines actions are criminals, as are partisans. I could also argue, again based on your definition, that George Washington was a criminal as were all of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence. The point I'm trying to make here is that "actions" are not a thing in and of themselves - they take place in a context of meaning (a point, I should note, that is recognized in most of the English derived legal systems). If we judge solely by actions, then there is no difference between "killing" and "murder".

Whoah there! I only said "Military Force" is defined by action. It is killing folks, frightening cats and breaking stuff. These are actions. The legitimacy of the action is defined by the intent and against whom it takes place. (GW being a terrorist is a whole other argument and as my family lost considerable wealth when we left the Americas, one I am willing to have!! )

It strikes me that you are actually making my point for me . I never said that kinetic operations must be a "reasoned debate" . "Break the will of another"? What is that but soften them up to accept your "solution".

I may well be making your point, but I am using my understanding and language. I consider the "breaking of will" to be central tenet of military thought.

Hmmm, I think I'm going to disagree that a military defeat is a necessary condition here. As examples, I'll cite Vietnam and Pyrrhus, but there ae others.

Correct me if I am wrong, but was not the US Governments/Army's will to continue action broken by North Vietnams use of violence? What caused the US withdrawal and then failure to defend South Vietnam?

Anyway, I'm off watching the US primaries. Some inetersting results coming out now.

Marc

Got that right. I see Obama got Utah and North Dakota. I guess the African American populations of those states must have turned out in force!!

[marct]

Whoah there! I only said "Military Force" is defined by action. It is killing folks, frightening cats and breaking stuff. These are actions. The legitimacy of the action is defined by the intent and against whom it takes place. (GW being a terrorist is a whole other argument and as my family lost considerable wealth when we left the Americas, one I am willing to have!! )

Oh I am beginning to think that we need to have many pints to thrash this one out . Defining legitimacy by intent and target? That sounds way too much like "I just waned to scare him! I didn't know it was loaded!". If legitimacy is defined that way, then AQ is quite legitimate.

On GW, I don't know which of our families is better off - we lost a lot in that fracas as well and ended up in Canada. I suspect we would come down on the same side

I may well be making your point, but I am using my understanding and language. I consider the "breaking of will" to be central tenet of military thought.

Okay, that's fine and I would agree that it certainly has been and is a central tenet of most military thought.

Correct me if I am wrong, but was not the US Governments/Army's will to continue action broken by North Vietnams use of violence? What caused the US withdrawal and then failure to defend South Vietnam?

Hmmm, I don't think so - I would suggest that the US people's will, not that of the military, was broken by the North Vietnamese. I used those two examples because they were both cases where all the battles were won by one side, but the war was lost - basically, the side that lost the war never really suffered a military defeat.

Got to admit, Wilf, this is fun - but a few pints would make it more so .

Marc

ps. Aargh! I missed Ken's post too! Oh, well, it's late and Obama is speaking.... I think it's time to crash.

[William F. Owen]

Oh I am beginning to think that we need to have many pints to thrash this one out . Defining legitimacy by intent and target? That sounds way too much like "I just waned to scare him! I didn't know it was loaded!". If legitimacy is defined that way, then AQ is quite legitimate..

I think that, TODAY, the intentional lethal targetting of civilians is never justified. It is one of my qualifiers for war crimes. So that's why I say intent and target.

Hmmm, I don't think so - I would suggest that the US people's will, not that of the military, was broken by the North Vietnamese. I used those two examples because they were both cases where all the battles were won by one side, but the war was lost - basically, the side that lost the war never really suffered a military defeat.

So someone's will was broken by military action. Some as in some part of Clausewitz trinity. This would suggest that part of the "narrative" has to be "we are winning." Of course most terrorism and insurgency comes from the narrative, of "we are oppressed, occupied, and/or victims."

This is where I become sceptical of the utility of a narrative, because they are so subjective and culture specific. EG: In Thailand most rural Thai/Lao men think all western woman love having sex, all the time, with anyone, because that's what it shows on TV and in movies.

Predictably I am also an effects/ information operations skeptic, for this same reason.

If what I can take from your paper is, "Do no harm to civilians, because it makes you look bad," then I can sign up for that and did so long ago. If we further suggest that you can ACT in a way that projects an image of what you want them to believe, I begin to scratch my head a bit.

Got to admit, Wilf, this is fun - but a few pints would make it more so .

If I ever get north of the lower 48, or you ever get your ass to Tel-Aviv then pints of something it is!

[marct]

Hi Wilf,

I think that, TODAY, the intentional lethal targetting of civilians is never justified. It is one of my qualifiers for war crimes. So that's why I say intent and target.

Okay, I actually happen to agree with you that such targeting is beyond the pale. Still and all, that is a special case in the history of warfare. Civilians have been routinely targeted in the past (including WW II), so a modern convention cannot be used to create a model that covers warfare per se; which was one of my goals.

So someone's will was broken by military action. Some as in some part of Clausewitz trinity. This would suggest that part of the "narrative" has to be "we are winning." Of course most terrorism and insurgency comes from the narrative, of "we are oppressed, occupied, and/or victims."

Sure, at second hand. I have no problem with the causal effects of targeted violence acting to break someone's will, only with restricting it to the opposing military force. We may be having a bit of a word problem here - I would include "breaking will" under the more general heading of "changing perceptions".

On where terrorist narratives come from, the one you mentioned is certainly a powerful situational one. But does it always apply? I don't think it does, and I can point to some examples (not many) - the 7/7 bombers, some of the radical student groups in the 1960's US, some of the radical ecological and animal rights groups (although you could argue that they transfered that narrative to the ecology or animals).

This is where I become sceptical of the utility of a narrative, because they are so subjective and culture specific. EG: In Thailand most rural Thai/Lao men think all western woman love having sex, all the time, with anyone, because that's what it shows on TV and in movies.

I think we have to draw a distinction between a narrative and a character (stereotype). They certainly reinforce each other, but they aren't the same. Narratives are more process/outcomes oriented, while characters tend to be fairly static (okay, except when they are a recognized process character like the Hero, etc...).

If what I can take from your paper is, "Do no harm to civilians, because it makes you look bad," then I can sign up for that and did so long ago. If we further suggest that you can ACT in a way that projects an image of what you want them to believe, I begin to scratch my head a bit.

I think it's possible to do so, but also don't forget that a lot of the stuff in that paper isn't aimed at the opponent; it's aimed at the homeland population and global public opinion. Let's go back to the Vietnam example again; the war was lost because of politics in the US and globally. If that's the case, then not considering those populations is like a military force leaving both flanks open with neon signs saying "Hit Here".

If I ever get north of the lower 48, or you ever get your ass to Tel-Aviv then pints of something it is!

Bangkok is more likely than Tel-Aviv, but you never know . Maybe we can split the difference and meet in Leipzig (I'll be there again summer of 09).

Marc

[William F. Owen]

Hey Doc,

Okay, I actually happen to agree with you that such targeting is beyond the pale. Still and all, that is a special case in the history of warfare. Civilians have been routinely targeted in the past (including WW II), so a modern convention cannot be used to create a model that covers warfare per se; which was one of my goals.

I'm slightly uncomfortable with the idea that model that covers warfare might not a base that describes the moral and legitimate basis for the use of violence. I would want to consider this in the context of other things like slavery, as being considered wrong in our current cultural context.

Sure, at second hand. I have no problem with the causal effects of targeted violence acting to break someone's will, only with restricting it to the opposing military force. We may be having a bit of a word problem here - I would include "breaking will" under the more general heading of "changing perceptions".

Concur. The point being that violence, or the successful resistance against violence, creates the belief that you aim to benefit from.

On where terrorist narratives come from, the one you mentioned is certainly a powerful situational one. But does it always apply? I don't think it does, and I can point to some examples (not many) - the 7/7 bombers, some of the radical student groups in the 1960's US, some of the radical ecological and animal rights groups (although you could argue that they transfered that narrative to the ecology or animals).

The 7/7 boys saw themselves as victims, or aligned somehow with the oppressed. I think all violent radicals are driven by a very powerful internal narrative (or even dialogue!! ). Culture has a massive part to play in this, and some cultures are very good at creating violent radicals.

I think we have to draw a distinction between a narrative and a character (stereotype). They certainly reinforce each other, but they aren't the same. Narratives are more process/outcomes oriented, while characters tend to be fairly static (okay, except when they are a recognized process character like the Hero, etc...).

Never thought my training as a novelist and screenwriter would be useful in military thought, but I agree. Using Vogler, or Campbell, as my starting point I would suggest that character arc is critical, as most people sees themselves as the hero. (which is why in Blackfoot my hero was described as boring and two dimensional!!)

I think it's possible to do so, but also don't forget that a lot of the stuff in that paper isn't aimed at the opponent; it's aimed at the homeland population and global public opinion. Let's go back to the Vietnam example again; the war was lost because of politics in the US and globally. If that's the case, then not considering those populations is like a military force leaving both flanks open with neon signs saying "Hit Here".

Broadly I agree, and I think this is very important. Yes, you have to support the Trinity, BUT... if you start aiming action at your own population, my feeling is that you may be close to breaking the law, if you are a military organisation. - and Clausewitz rocks!!

Bangkok is more likely than Tel-Aviv, but you never know . Maybe we can split the difference and meet in Leipzig (I'll be there again summer of 09).

I hear there are some places in Leipzig, that do good coffee and cream cheese bagels! - so I'm in.

[Ken White]

water, so will I...

Consider that politics almost certainly evolved to preclude or ameliorate conflict and / or combat. Not a chicken egg, I think, rather an innate human foible controlled by a process developed for the express purpose which had other uses and thus expanded to the point the original purpose dropped in perceived importance.

Wilf's definition of bomb planters, as Marc correctly shows is not a given but is situation dependent. With respect to both the combat and political facets. The point, of course is that communication is always skewed by the situational factors.

Military defeat is rarely required for a cessation of conflict or combat. In all the history of the US, IIRC, only Germany and Japan in WW II qualify as true defeats (and there are some caveats on both those...). The Civil War, our only truly existential war after the Revolution IMO is an iffy case, none of the others even come close. There were operational wins but no true defeats of opponents. The point of all that is that just as conflict generates politics which may fail and lead to combat, war will revert to politics more often than it will achieve a military defeat. (Note to quibblers; that's a quick assessment on my part and based on recent history. I have no interest in researching back to the Napoleanic era or earlier but that statement is generally correct post WW II -- which is where we are).

War is the most stupid and unnecessary of all human endeavors -- but it is not going away because humans are fallible and malleable. It is well known that an adrenalin rush gives a human intense focus, drive, selective hearing and tunnel vision. Might the same thing occur to nations or groups -- thus precluding or, at a minimum, distorting, communication...

[William F. Owen]

Military defeat is rarely required for a cessation of conflict or combat. In all the history of the US, IIRC, only Germany and Japan in WW II qualify as true defeats (and there are some caveats on both those...). The Civil War, our only truly existential war after the Revolution IMO is an iffy case, none of the others even come close.

AH! Sorry, I missed this in all the excitement. I am using military defeat to encompass the situation where one party withdraws from combat, because they do not believe their military is capable of achieving the aim they require.

I am not talking about whole sale surrender. The (P)IRA for example, negotiated the cease fire because they realised violence was getting them nowhere. The British Army/Government never offered to cease operations, and never stopped until a cease fire was in place.

Thanks for putting me straight Ken! Nothing like being forced to write clearly to improve ones thinking.