Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 38 of 38

Thread: What to Know Before You Go

  1. #21
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Wayne,

    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    We seem to take for granted that war or, to use a less loaded word, conflict is a subset of politics. This sets up a temporal or logical continuum which implies that political organization is prior to conflict. We seem not to have gotten too far by accepting this point of view.
    Hmm. Okay, I'll bite - what's your definition of politics? From your comments on "civilization" and "polis", I've got a guess, but I'd rather not guess .

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  2. #22
    Council Member Ron Humphrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    1,099

    Wink Me Thinks

    WM might be on to something ...

  3. #23
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Wilf,

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    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".

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    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".

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    ...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
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  4. #24
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    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!! )
    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    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!!
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  5. #25
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Since WM and Ron are throwing pebbles in the

    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...

  6. #26
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post

    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.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  7. #27
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    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.
    Last edited by marct; 02-06-2008 at 05:04 AM. Reason: added ps.
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  8. #28
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    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!
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  9. #29
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    Hi Wayne,



    Hmm. Okay, I'll bite - what's your definition of politics? From your comments on "civilization" and "polis", I've got a guess, but I'd rather not guess .

    Marc
    Marc,

    To get my definition of politics, I think you can combine the contents of Plato's Statesman and Hobbes Leviathian. (If you prefer to use Aristotle's Politics to Plato, that should not be too much of a problem. I personally do not see much different between the two of them as far as origin and purpose of politics goes.) BTW, I suspect that 'polite,' 'politics,' and 'police' are probably all derived from the same root, which does not seem too coincidental to me. Politics is a civilized attempt to control conflict. When it fails, folks return to their uncivilized roots and use "knuckles" to try to solve their problems.

    Politics is what happens when folks attempt to get agreement in a group that, unlike a family, has little in common besides being humans (in other words, no strong kinship ties). Usually that attempt to get agreement focuses on what their needs and desires are and how best to fulfill them, especially in an environment that is marked by scarcity. By scarcity I mean that each cannot get everything he or she wants without depriving others of the ability to fulfill all of their wants and desires. If nothing else, time will always be scarce. The condition of scarcity is why I evoked Hobbes' rather than Locke's myth of the origin of the political body we usually call government. However, the story in Plato's Republic about the education and lifestyle of the Guardians (AKA Aristotle's "natural leaders") would serve just as well. I think Plato's demand that the Guardians' property be held communally says a lot about the source of conflict.

  10. #30
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default Hmmmm....

    Hi Wayne,

    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    To get my definition of politics, I think you can combine the contents of Plato's Statesman and Hobbes Leviathian.... Politics is a civilized attempt to control conflict. When it fails, folks return to their uncivilized roots and use "knuckles" to try to solve their problems.
    Hmmm, okay, that was pretty much what I thought. More on the phylogenic development later in the post...

    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    Politics is what happens when folks attempt to get agreement in a group that, unlike a family, has little in common besides being humans (in other words, no strong kinship ties). Usually that attempt to get agreement focuses on what their needs and desires are and how best to fulfill them, especially in an environment that is marked by scarcity. By scarcity I mean that each cannot get everything he or she wants without depriving others of the ability to fulfill all of their wants and desires. If nothing else, time will always be scarce. The condition of scarcity is why I evoked Hobbes' rather than Locke's myth of the origin of the political body we usually call government. However, the story in Plato's Republic about the education and lifestyle of the Guardians (AKA Aristotle's "natural leaders") would serve just as well. I think Plato's demand that the Guardians' property be held communally says a lot about the source of conflict.
    Okay, have you noticed how this plays out as a line of evolution? Chaos -> kinship -> city/civilized? This is part of a narrative that comes out of European philosophy, theology and social theory; the idea that humans move in a linear fashion through particular stages or phases. Turgot used it in his Universal History, but that was just an updated version of Lucretius. The problem with it is that while it is a very compelling story, the archaeological data just doesn't support it.

    First off, the "chaos" is hard to actually find. About the only ethnographic example we have is from the Anderman Islands, and that is more than somewhat suspect. If we go back into the archaeological record, we just don't find much to indicate systemic human vs. human conflict. Even Hobbes' characterization of life as "nasty, brutish and short" is wrong in pretty much all particulars. "nasty" is an aesthetic judgement as is "brutish", although that has implications of no arts which is clearly not the case with hunter gatherer groups. "short", well, what can I say but that the skeletal evidence from the early horticultural sites in the ME show that humans dropped several inches, suffered far more diseases (originally related to malnutrition such as rickets) and died on average about 15-20 years earlier than hunter gatherers.

    Horticultural settlements appear to be a reaction to a climate shift about 10-12,000 years ago at least in the ME (there's some debate on that and a few pieces of evidence to suggest a much earlier date, but that could be a "winter quarters" arrangement). Within ~200 years, we start seeing differences in grave goods and in skeletal wear patterns which is usually taken as a sign of class differentiation. If Schmandt-Besserat is correct, then "civilization" was developed by accountants.

    On your point about scarcity, I don't necessarily agree or disagree with you - I would prefer to have the specific context defined better. There is some indication that kinship systems expanded out into para-kinship systems as a way of alleviating situational resource scarcity and that concepts of feud evolved out of this - call it "primitive contract law" if you like. We certainly see what I would call "politics" operating in these systems, as we have seen it operating in hunter-gatherer systems (e.g. the !Kung San). BTW, we are seeing exactly the same structure developing in North America - a collection of para-kinship systems operating to control access to scarce resources. Personally, I find the parallelism compelling, so I would place "politics" earlier than cities, "civilization", and police.

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  11. #31
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Wilf,

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    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...).

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    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".

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    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
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  12. #32
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    Okay, have you noticed how this plays out as a line of evolution? Chaos -> kinship -> city/civilized? This is part of a narrative that comes out of European philosophy, theology and social theory; the idea that humans move in a linear fashion through particular stages or phases.
    Your linear model is not what I had in mind. First of all, I did not start with chaos. I also never indicated a linear progression. In fact if you read my post on the Hybrid wars thread, you will note that I suggested a harmonic or oscillating motion between two poles as the more likely way of understanding what happens--it is a dialectic of sorts, but not Hegelian. That is, it moves from thesis to antithesis; however the denial of the antithesis does not necessarily yield a new thesis (through synthesis); instead it may return to the original thesis. About the best I am willing to countenance is a spiral development whose slope is probably very small. It is probably more like the M.C. Escher "waterfall" in the graphic piece found here

    I mentioned Plato's Republic in my earlier post. Perhaps what is most striking about that work is the concluding myth of Er(10.614-10.621), in which Plato eschews linear progress with the discussion of reincarnation.

    BTW, it is not just Western philosophy/theology that notes stages of development. If you think I am conflating staged development, which is descriptive, with progress, which is normative, rest assured that I am not. I read my Hume and G.E Moore quite closely.

  13. #33
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Wayne,

    Not so much a conflation as an assumption of causation; it's partially built into Hobbes, which is why I was making the assumption. On oscillations, I have no problem with that as a metaphor. I'l pop over and read your post there.

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  14. #34
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    Politics is a civilized attempt to control conflict. When it fails, folks return to their uncivilized roots and use "knuckles" to try to solve their problems.
    I strongly suspect that both politics and war are uncivilized and predate humanity. Gorillas have disputes over females and social mechanisms for resolving them. I strongly suspect that whether specific disputes are resolved by psychical force or negations depends on whether or not one gorilla is bigger than the other. They only negotiated when they were the same size. (As soon as one gorilla figured out would happen if he whacked the other over the head with a rock, he choose violence. When they both figured out how to use rocks, they both choose politics. When one figured out he could hide in a tree and ambush the other, it went back to violence, etc.. Thus, the importance of knowing how to fight, how to negotiate and having the biggest rock.)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    Sometimes it takes someone without deep experience to think creatively.

  15. #35
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Hey Doc,

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    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!!)

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    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!!

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    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.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  16. #36
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Hey Doc,
    What's up, Wilf?



    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    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.
    Back when I was talking my undergrad course in social theory, I came to the conclusion that there were too many unspoken and often unthought assumptions behind most of it. Being the annoying rabble rouser I am (or hopeless romantic as Stan says ), I decided to see what would happen if I inverted basic cultural assumptions and looked at the theories that way. One of the key assumptions I would often invert was the belief in reincarnation (officially declared heretical at the 2nd Council of Constantinople in 553 a.d.) and assume it was real. Absolutely fascinating results that render most of the inherent "obvious" morality in large amounts of Western social theory totally irrelevant at best, and "insane" at worst.

    I tried to do the same sort of "inversion" when IO was writing this paper - not on reincarnation this time but, rather, on who was doing the state building "us" (broadly construed as the Anglo Culture Complex and the West) and AQ. What I wanted to see was whether or not the same questions would operate for AQ which, obviously, operates using a completely different set of grounds for their operational morality. If it did work for "them", then I could say that the "model" was able to cover a broader spectrum than that grounded solely in Western thought.

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    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.
    Could be. I think a lot of it has to do with identity formation by (self-)adoption and internalization of character narratives - the character arc you mention. I remember chatting with a couple of colleagues about the idea that "identity" is really just stories that we tell about ourselves to ourselves and others... back to Shakespeare and "All the world's a stage...".

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    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!!
    I'm not sure about that at all (i.e. breaking the law). First, military operations will have an informational effect on your own population. Second, people will talk with their families and friends about what's happening and, increasingly, we are also seeing embedded and semi-embedded journalists in military operations as well, so information will flow from the field to the home population. When you add in milblogging and other new media efforts, then the amount of information flowing to the home population gets pretty large.

    But information is, to use Bateson's definition, "a difference that makes a difference", and this is where we start getting into "aiming action at your own population". I'm not advocating a propaganda effort; the politicians are already doing enough of that as is. What I am advocating is open, thoughtful and effective communications from the field along the lines suggested by Lt Gen Caldwell.

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    I hear there are some places in Leipzig, that do good coffee and cream cheese bagels! - so I'm in.
    Not to mention absolutely killer ice cream and great beer . Cool! I'll be there next year on the weekend of Trinity Sunday (my choir has been invited back for the third time to be Choir in Residence at the Thomaskirche).

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  17. #37
    Council Member Ron Humphrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    1,099

    Question MarcT

    Been trying to get my head around what I wanted to say but kids and all got me focusing on moslow's Hierarchy for real

    The one thing that always bothered me in school when discussing this was the fact that so much of what is assumed and accepted in the model is interchangeable due to human political and social development or lack thereof.

    Everyone eats but how much and when and where, and what kind is all determined more by the decisions they make reference dieting or working out, etc. There is a sociopolitical element to almost all of the steps and the last one being the most dynamic.

    Self - Actualization = what?

    It changes for each person based on their situation=ok, but it changes for too many other reasons as well, who you are, where you're from, who you know, what you're told by whom, etc. To cap it all off western society seems to get a kick out of changing the rules for what actual = self-actualized, so no matter what one does we can always do better, and if there is no better ; well we'll make up what better should be.

    Long and short it seems to me that we have a pretty difficult time selling a lot of our "learning" to these outside countries because they probably actually reflect the hierarchy more than we do .

  18. #38
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Ron,

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey View Post
    Been trying to get my head around what I wanted to say but kids and all got me focusing on moslow's Hierarchy for real
    Ah, yes, dear old Maslow - sigh!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey View Post
    The one thing that always bothered me in school when discussing this was the fact that so much of what is assumed and accepted in the model is interchangeable due to human political and social development or lack thereof.

    Everyone eats but how much and when and where, and what kind is all determined more by the decisions they make reference dieting or working out, etc. There is a sociopolitical element to almost all of the steps and the last one being the most dynamic.
    Yupper, and a lot of that is cultural. One of the things that has been bothering me about a lot of the state-building stuff is the uncritical assumption of individuality, aka the application of Maslow's Hierarchy where it shouldn't be applied. As you note

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey View Post
    Self - Actualization = what?
    For example, so much of the state-building literature makes the assumption that if there is a solid economic infrastructure, people will be too busy making money to revolt. Really? Self actualization through material wealth comes out of the Protestant Revolution (okay, it's actually from radical Calvinist theology; cf Max Weber's Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism), but what about other status/value chains? Just speaking personally, money isn't a major motivator.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey View Post
    It changes for each person based on their situation=ok, but it changes for too many other reasons as well, who you are, where you're from, who you know, what you're told by whom, etc. To cap it all off western society seems to get a kick out of changing the rules for what actual = self-actualized, so no matter what one does we can always do better, and if there is no better ; well we'll make up what better should be.
    Marketing..... Seriously, in an economic system based on selling 1600 vairieties of ice cream that all taste like ____, you have to create fads which means you have to change what is de rigeur every season. When I reworked my Intro to Anthro course a couple of years ago, I described this as "the problem of plenty".

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey View Post
    Long and short it seems to me that we have a pretty difficult time selling a lot of our "learning" to these outside countries because they probably actually reflect the hierarchy more than we do .
    I'd disagree with that, but only in the sense that you are operating on totally different specifics of the hierarchy.

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •