Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 49 of 49

Thread: How do We Train to Match our Actions to Our Narrative?

  1. #41
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    567

    Default

    If we don't start the war, then the narrative already exists. For example, Kosovo. Most of the world thought that the Albanians were being ethnically cleansed. When we intervened on their side, we had the support of everyone who agreed with the existing narrative. (The Serbs of course had a different perspective but that wasn't the military's problem: let the military kick their ass and let the State Department worry about patching things up with a defeated enemy seems like a good division of responsibilities to me.)

    The North Vietnamese had a narrative before we intervened too: foreigners keep trying to occupy us, but through continuous guerrilla we''ll inevitably be liberated. No matter what we did militarily we couldn't change their narrative.

    RE: Al Qaeda. I think the most effective counter narrative is a sound bite. Al Qaeda blows up more Muslims than they do "Zionists and Crusaders." It's true and effective with the target market: potential AQ recruits.
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    Sometimes it takes someone without deep experience to think creatively.

  2. #42
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eden View Post
    you can see that constructing something like a coherent 'Why we Fight' narrative is doomed to failure.
    I have to disagree. "What happened on Sept 11 is wrong and we want all the help we can get fighting it," was working: international banking restrictions, police around the world making arrests etc. It took a core value that almost all people agree with - massacring innocent civilians is wrong - and allowed them to adopt it to the own identities. (Canada can help by... The UK can help by... Egypt may understand the frustration but ...)

    Fewer people signed up to "Saddam is part of the problem." Leaving aside the issue of whether that change was right or wrong, it is possible to have a broad consensus. (Even the Germans agree now that we were on the right side in WWII.)

    Most people believe in the right to self defense. It's very hard to convince the world that we need to start a war, much easier to convince them that they should help us finish it.
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    Sometimes it takes someone without deep experience to think creatively.

  3. #43
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rank amateur View Post
    I have to disagree. "What happened on Sept 11 is wrong and we want all the help we can get fighting it," was working: international banking restrictions, police around the world making arrests etc. It took a core value that almost all people agree with - massacring innocent civilians is wrong - and allowed them to adopt it to the own identities. (Canada can help by... The UK can help by... Egypt may understand the frustration but ...)
    The Sept 11 narrative worked to a degree, in certain areas....but it's certainly not a unified narrative with 100% buy-in. Even in our own country it didn't get 100% buy-in. It's easy to dismiss the conspiracy folks and assorted wing-nuts, but they are an audience. Also, I'm not sure that the narrative was necessarily adopted by other countries in the sense that I think you mean...

    My take on narratives is somewhat different, since I come from a history and not anthropology or sociology background. I tend to see how the narratives shift over time, and how the perspective of a particular period gives them a different view on events than a current writer might have. I also tend to agree with Marc that the informal ("darker" to use his term) narrative is much more powerful as it's based on more primal considerations (and often passed on by someone the listener 'knows' or 'respects').
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  4. #44
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    One of the things that bugs me is the actual term "Narrative". Academically, it comes out of discursive textual analysis and that is a different source point from where most of the original Anthropology work came from (which was oral cultures). The term, as it's used in a lot of academic circles, points towards the idea hat you can treat anything as a "text"; an assertion that contains a germ of truth, but so does he idea that you can use an axe to build anything (you can, but it's not the most efficient tool).

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    My take on narratives is somewhat different, since I come from a history and not anthropology or sociology background. I tend to see how the narratives shift over time, and how the perspective of a particular period gives them a different view on events than a current writer might have.
    That's one of the main problems I have with treating anything and everything "as text" (although, it does allow for some great humour ). What is missing is the sense of constant negotiation and construction-reconstruction which appears in oral cultures. And, lest someone point out that neither we nor AQ are oral cultures, think about the increasing dominance of rapid person-to-person communications technologies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    I also tend to agree with Marc that the informal ("darker" to use his term) narrative is much more powerful as it's based on more primal considerations (and often passed on by someone the listener 'knows' or 'respects').
    Really this just stems from the communications bandwidth as we get closer and closer to simulating face to face communications. As the simulation of f2f increases, we can convey more and more emotional connotations; in effect partially conditioning the audience. In this sense, what we see in he press, what is passed over cell phone trees, what shows up in YouTube, Blogs, etc. is a more immediate (and emotional) part of an ongoing multilogue that produces a constantly shifting narrative that, with time, starts to get "hardened" around generally agreed upon "evens", "facts" and "logics" - a hardening of interpretation if you will.

    Once the topic becomes less immediately important to people, the ongoing discussions recede from general discussions and held by a smaller and smaller number of people - we now have "historical narratives", or "myths", that a part of the background of the culture. These, in turn, are subject to renegotiation and reinterpretation by that small number of people (historians ).
    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/

  5. #45
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    informal ("darker" to use his term) narrative is much more powerful as it's based on more primal considerations (and often passed on by someone the listener 'knows' or 'respects').
    I agree. I think it's very reasonable to assume that when you aim a kinetic weapon at someone you will get a primal "fight or flight" reaction. I think many of the problems in Iraq can be traced - at least in part - to the fact that our strategy depends on a different, more cooperative primal response.
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    Sometimes it takes someone without deep experience to think creatively.

  6. #46
    Council Member Ron Humphrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    1,099

    Question I find my curiosity peaked

    Quote Originally Posted by Rank amateur View Post
    I agree. I think it's very reasonable to assume that when you aim a kinetic weapon at someone you will get a primal "fight or flight" reaction. I think many of the problems in Iraq can be traced - at least in part - to the fact that our strategy depends on a different, more cooperative primal response.
    Would you be able to expand on that? (Within the realm of open source, of course)
    Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours

    Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur

  7. #47
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey View Post
    Would you be able to expand on that?
    I can. I'm making very slow progress on an essay "The limits of COIN doctrine in a multifactional environment with a weak central government." I will be looking for comment and feedback. (For example, I'm not sure that I've used the word doctrine correctly.) I'll send you a first draft - when ready - through p.m. if you'd like.

    I hadn't considered primal emotion until this thread, but diplomats do everything possible to remove primary responses before negoitations. (Excessive politeness limits the possibility of anger. They even feed everyone to make sure that they aren't hungry. etc.) Battle is obviously very primal. Diplomacy works well with multiple parties. War tends to be binary. (Even in a world war all the countries split into sides: i.e. Allies vs. Axis.) Traditional COIN is also binary: government vs. anti government insurgents.

    I'm thinking about the problems/implications/potential solutions of "clearing and holding" in multifactional environments. Hopefully, I'll be able to get everything down coherently. Any thoughts, comments or relevant experiences from the council are very welcome.

    To bring the discussion back on topic. If our actions invoke primal responses - fear, fight or flight - is it realistic to expect people to accept our narrative that we want political reconciliation? Obviously, we're trying to create fewer/weaker primal responses through less kinetic ops etc., and we're being more diplomatic - sipping tea with chiefs - so we've recognized the problem/issues. I hope to add something to the dialog.
    Last edited by Rank amateur; 05-10-2008 at 04:45 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    Sometimes it takes someone without deep experience to think creatively.

  8. #48
    Council Member Ron Humphrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    1,099

    Post Looking Forward to that

    Quote Originally Posted by Rank amateur View Post
    I can. I'm making very slow progress on an essay "The limits of COIN doctrine in a multi factional environment with a weak central government." I will be looking for comment and feedback. (For example, I'm not sure that I've used the word doctrine correctly.) I'll send you a first draft - when ready - through p.m. if you'd like.

    I hadn't considered primal emotion until this thread, but diplomats do everything possible to remove primary responses before negotiations. (Excessive politeness limits the possibility of anger. They even feed everyone to make sure that they aren't hungry. etc.) Battle is obviously very primal. Diplomacy works well with multiple parties. War tends to be binary. (Even in a world war all the countries split into sides: i.e. Allies vs. Axis.) Traditional COIN is also binary: government vs. anti government insurgents.

    I'm thinking about the problems/implications/potential solutions of "clearing and holding" in multi factional environments. Hopefully, I'll be able to get everything down coherently. Any thoughts, comments or relevant experiences from the council are very welcome.

    To bring the discussion back on topic. If our actions invoke primal responses - fear, fight or flight - is it realistic to expect people to accept our narrative that we want political reconciliation? Obviously, we're trying to create fewer/weaker primal responses through less kinetic ops etc., and we're being more diplomatic - sipping tea with chiefs - so we've recognized the problem/issues. I hope to add something to the dialog.
    Sounds very thought provoking , the one thing I would say is that regardless of how hard negotiators may try to keep primal considerations out of negotiations the best one's seem to realize at some point that in the end any lasting resolution will have to address those very things. If not you may have an "agreement" today but be almost guaranteed to have to return to the bargaining table quite often.

    It is saddening to me how we as human beings want to try so hard to make our worlds fit into something comfortable and equally unrepresentative of the realities of who we are. Planning for businesses, architects, scientists, etc allow for some verifiable understanding of what the future for particular projects looks like. Life on the other hand (which is in my opinion) what we're really dealing with in wars is not only not predictable but literally interdependent on all the players involved and the primal instincts each has.

    I think back to a quote I think was Abraham Lincoln.
    The best thing about the future is that it happens one day at a time
    By trying to keep what is natural and thereby unavoidable out of planning we really do tend to forget that tomorrow's another day and those things that weren't addressed today WILL still be there tomorrow.

    Good luck with the paper and I'd love to see a copy, but considering the company we keep here I'm sure some of the other's will be able to help much more than I
    Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours

    Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur

  9. #49
    Council Member Dr Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    86

    Default The Mission Narrative

    Cross posting - the concept of the "mission narrative" is the subject of this post on the CAC Blog:

    http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/B...narrative.aspx

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
  •