What to Know Before You Go

[SWJED]

What to Know Before You Go: 10 Questions to Ask Before, and During, a Mission

Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D

The attached paper is the pre-conference discussion draft that will be presented at the Stability Operations & State-Building: Continuities & Contingencies Conference at Austin Peay State University on February 13-15th, 2008. The editors of the Small Wars Journal have graciously agree to post it so that people will have an opportunity to read it before the conference.

Abstract

In this paper, I argue that warfare and "peace building" are forms of communicative action in Habermas' sense of the term. Drawing on Canadian Communications Theory, Symbolic Anthropology and the work of Bronislaw Malinowski, this paper examines three main areas of military operations in terms of communicative action – communication about global policy, communication in the operational environment, and communication in terms of narrative-mythic structures – and uses them to pose specific operational questions.

[marct]

Just wanted to thank you for posting it . Comments, criticism, etc. all welcome. This is the pre-conference draft and the final version isn't due until after the conference.

Marc

[William F. Owen]

Just wanted to thank you for posting it . Comments, criticism, etc. all welcome. This is the pre-conference draft and the final version isn't due until after the conference.

Marc

I am not sure criticism will be welcome. From reading this through once I think it took 32 pages to say what could have been done in 5.

I am also somewhat troubled by the choice of complex languages and ideas. It is my experience that assuming a reader knows what "Habermas' theory of communicative action" inoculates you from criticism since few are prepared to stand up and say "i don't get it" for fear of looking ignorant.

Well, I may have left school at 16 and only been an NCO, but I don't get it. I am not sure this paper helps our understanding of the problem. If some one can simplify this paper to make it more accessible, I'd be very grateful.

[marct]

Hi Wilf,

I am not sure criticism will be welcome. From reading this through once I think it took 32 pages to say what could have been done in 5.

Criticism is always welcome - even if I don't like it . On the page length, yeah, you are right although I think 8 pages would be more like it (more later).

I am also somewhat troubled by the choice of complex languages and ideas. It is my experience that assuming a reader knows what "Habermas' theory of communicative action" inoculates you from criticism since few are prepared to stand up and say "i don't get it" for fear of looking ignorant.

Hmmm, good point and it's a part of academic writing that I think has been ingrained in me. The language is complex because I try and use it in a very precise manner, which was not easy. The ideas are complex because I think the reality is complex and we have gotten into too much drek by assuming that things will be easy.

The final reason, and it gets back to your comment on the length,was that the conference itself is billed as "academic" and that is the genre. Okay, that's a cop out in some ways despite the fact it's true . Let me put it this way - I tried to aim the language, and paper, at a very specific audience using the language and form I did to start a discussion. If somebody doesn't know about Habermas, that's cool - you don't have to and, o be quite honest, I wasted too much time learning his stuff.

Forgive me, but I'm going to go on a bit of a rant here. What in the frak is wrong with saying you don't know something? There is something really wrong with any culture that requires people to act as if they know and, in reality, don't. Honestly, it really burns my bu&& ! I see it in too many of my students and colleagues and, while I actually do understand where it comes from (and I could explain it in excruciating academic detail), I think it is one of the stupidest things we, as a species, have come up with!

Well, I may have left school at 16 and only been an NCO, but I don't get it. I am not sure this paper helps our understanding of the problem. If some one can simplify this paper to make it more accessible, I'd be very grateful.

Wilf, thank you! BTW, my grandfather left school after grade 3 (around 8) and was an NCO. My father-in-law never graduated from high school and was an NCO. They were two of the smartest people I ever knew. Tell you what, why don't you shot me off an email and we'll see if between us we can come up with a version you think is accessible.

Marc

[William F. Owen]

Forgive me, but I'm going to go on a bit of a rant here. What in the frak is wrong with saying you don't know something? There is something really wrong with any culture that requires people to act as if they know and, in reality, don't. Honestly, it really burns my bu&& ! I see it in too many of my students and colleagues and, while I actually do understand where it comes from (and I could explain it in excruciating academic detail), I think it is one of the stupidest things we, as a species, have come up with!

a. It is a real pleasure to inhabit a board such as this, and with men this polite and smart.

b. Rant away Bro! I hear you. If we can make this idea of yours simpler and more accessible, I'm in.

...so, two questions.

A. Is your paper military thought? Is it something done by armed forces to aid in the defeat of another armed force?

B. Can the concepts that underpin it, be usefully abstracted into simple statements that aid in the better understanding of the idea?

[Rank amateur]

In my humble opinion, I'd say the paper is an introduction into how societys are built, structured and evolve, for soldiers who are asked to reengineer societies. In my opinion, on a meta level, it strongly implies that societies are so fricken complicated that maybe soldiers shouldn't be asked to reengineer them - which you picked up on - by that is somewhat irrelevant since soldiers are being asked to reengineer them regardless of what I may think.

[marct]

Hi Wilf,

A. Is your paper military thought? Is it something done by armed forces to aid in the defeat of another armed force?

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"?

There's been a lot of discussion on taxonomies of conflict on the board: 4GW, 5GW, COIN, Conventional", Hybrid, etc. What most of them fail to do is really take Clausewitz seriously because, if you do, you inevitably end up with warfare (in any and all forms) as a subset of political (and communicative) action. In fact, if you follow along with the logic of it, all violence falls under this heading regardless of what it is called.

Now that, per se, doesn't really help most militaries in and of itself . What might do so is to start thinking about how "violence" is defined in various cultures and between them n both nation states and trans-national organizations. Hmmm, let me see if I can come up with an example. If "Warfare" is defined by a strict definition, say the maneuvering of infantry, cavalry and artillery to cut off supply lines, then anything that doesn't fall into that definition becomes "unconventional" and something that isn't "right and proper" for the military to deal with, even if it still involves the organized application of violence; it may even be defined as "illegal".

I would suggest that we need to be aware of this, and how the definition of what is "warfare" inevitably changes over time (and why), and that that is part of the broader category of "military thought". So, a long and involved answer but, yes, I would classify the paper as "military thought" - or at least within shouting distance of it.

B. Can the concepts that underpin it, be usefully abstracted into simple statements that aid in the better understanding of the idea?

Now that is the $64,000 ($64,375.04 CDN) question. I know that I could do it, but I also know that with how I write it would come out sounding a bit like Zen koans. I don't have a good enough gasp of that particular audience and I would have to be an idiot to think that I did (referring to previous rant.....).

Marc

[Rank amateur]

communicative action in Habermas' sense of the term.

As a Spinozist and continental rationalist, I'll refrain from comment since I'm biased agianst Habermas' theory of communicative action.
(I think it's fairly obvious that his argument that the growth of a commercial mass media, has resulted in a situation in which media has become more of a commodity – something to be consumed – rather than a tool for public discourse is no longer relevant in a world where the mainstream media reports on the "blogosphere.")

[marct]

Hi RA,

(I think it's fairly obvious that his argument that the growth of a commercial mass media, has resulted in a situation in which media has become more of a commodity – something to be consumed – rather than a tool for public discourse is no longer relevant in a world where the mainstream media reports on the "blogosphere.")

Oh, I agree with that - even worse is his two volume monstrosity (which I read - twice ). Still, the basic concept is , I think, a useful one. At any rate, I'd be interested to see what you think about it.

Marc

[Rank amateur]

When I first read the 28 articles I found the article on cultural narratives woefully lacking in detail, so overall I'd say that your paper is very worthwhile. It is also very good. I was especially fond of the section on creating new shared narratives. I thought it was very practical and useful.

I'll make a couple of suggestions for additions, based on some comments that I've read here from other council members. (They may be beyond the scope of your paper.) Some people are much more committed to the American narrative than others: particularly the Bible. Can they be effective? Do you have any advice for these individuals or their commanders?

While you discussed the pace of social engineering etc, I sometimes get the feeling that there are many - and the president might be one of them - who feel that counterinsurgency techniques are a way of imposing an American narrative on other cultures. (Gates recent comments suggest we're developing what I call "COIN arrogance.") Most people realize that we can't create another America, but the idea that we can make other cultures much more like ours seems to be common. (I read comments like, "It may not look exactly like our American democracy, but I am convinced that Iraq will be a democracy.") I wonder if it would be useful for you to be more explicit about the challenges/limitations of trying to impose/introduce our narratives on other societies.

Again, I found your article very good and useful, but the more I think about it, the more I hate the title. "What to know" implies a didactic approach and you use a Socratic one. "Before you go" implies some time limitations and there really aren't any; people need to think about the questions before, during and after your mission. Finally, your title is very plain spoken. Your piece is very academic - which is fine since you're an academic - but why be misleading?

Believe it or not, I am working on something that covers some of the same ground, from a much more prescriptive, didactic COIN POV. My synapses aren't used to the high intellectual standards demanded by the Journal, but if I ever get it to the point where it might be worthy of discussion, can I e-mail you a draft for your comments?

[marct]

Hi RA,

When I first read the 28 articles I found the article on cultural narratives woefully lacking in detail, so overall I'd say that your paper is very worthwhile. It is also very good. I was especially fond of the section on creating new shared narratives. I thought it was very practical and useful.

Thanks - I'd found most of the discussion on narratives limited.

I'll make a couple of suggestions for additions, based on some comments that I've read here from other council members. (They may be beyond the scope of your paper.) Some people are much more committed to the American narrative than others: particularly the Bible. Can they be effective? Do you have any advice for these individuals or their commanders?

That's a tough one and, yes, it is beyond the scope of the paper. On the whole, and without really trying to think it through, I think that the most powerful American narrative is the Declaration of Independence. The Bible comes in a poor second by comparison in terms of universal appeal (the reasoning and evidence behind that is somewhat complex).

On pragmatic advice I'd prefer to work with someone else to come up with that but, in general, I'd have to say that recognize you are controlled by narratives and that others are as well. Listen to what they say carefully and and then ask them to explain.

While you discussed the pace of social engineering etc, I sometimes get the feeling that there are many - and the president might be one of them - who feel that counterinsurgency techniques are a way of imposing an American narrative on other cultures. (Gates recent comments suggest we're developing what I call "COIN arrogance.") Most people realize that we can't create another America, but the idea that we can make other cultures much more like ours seems to be common. (I read comments like, "It may not look exactly like our American democracy, but I am convinced that Iraq will be a democracy.") I wonder if it would be useful for you to be more explicit about the challenges/limitations of trying to impose/introduce our narratives on other societies.

I thought about that, but there is a danger that it would be taken as deterministic, and it isn't. We all engage in cultural and social engineering every day and the cumulative effects are what we see reflected in our societies. In the case of state building, the process is just accelerated.

Finally, your title is very plain spoken. Your piece is very academic - which is fine since you're an academic - but why be misleading?

Well, first because I actually think it is fairly plain spoken - yeah, I'm that much of an academic . Second, I don't think it is misleading per se because, following along the Socratic line, what you have to know is he questions not the answers (they would be nice, but let's get real about it ).

Believe it or not, I am working on something that covers some of the same ground, from a much more prescriptive, didactic COIN POV. My synapses aren't used to the high intellectual standards demanded by the Journal, but if I ever get it to the point where it might be worthy of discussion, can I e-mail you a draft for your comments?

Sure, fire away, and thanks for the comments.

Marc