The Basrah Gambit

[Ron Humphrey]

think he's got the broad strokes correct. This from your link:is, I believe correct in essence but wrong in detail -- at least in one detail.

The problem is not that the US is "weaponry focused" (whatever in the world that's supposed to mean); it is, as I pointed out a couple of days ago, that our prime "Arabists" continue to misread the nuances in the AO; they see what they hope to see as opposed to what is.

Tolstoy wrote in War and Peace:

When a man acts alone he always carries with him a certain series of considerations, that have as he supposes, directed his past conduct, and that serve to justify to him his present action, and to lead him to make projects for his future activity

.

If we accept that the same principle applies for the thinking, planning and perceptions of a man, then how is one to differentiate when one is simply seeing what they wish, what they expect, or what is actually taking place.

[Rank amateur]

Then how is one to differentiate when one is simply seeing what they wish, what they expect, or what is actually taking place.

In advertising, we do focus groups and polling. In conventional combat I imagine the key is expecting fog, friction and enemy adaptation and not getting personally attached to any particular tactic or plan. (There's a Darwinian process; people who see what
they want to see will sooner or later end up dead or defeated.)

Personally, I think the way we've defined "victory" and "defeat" in Iraq - and all the politics that surrounds those issues - pretty much guarantees that even if you can see what's actually happening, not very many people are going to agree with you.

I'm sure that Marc and Rex will also have some excellent suggestions for you.

the shoe fits on the other side as well.

Undoubtedly and those who attack us pay a high price for their misjudgment.

I think quite a few of those in positions of power know that better than we may give them credit for.

I hope you're not seeing what you want to see , but that just goes to show how difficult the problems of perception are.

[Ron Humphrey]

I hope you're not seeing what you want to see , but that just goes to show how difficult the problems of perception are.

But luckily enough for us I'm not the one who decides who does what, where.

Now one would think those who do decide have a some much wider scope than I

[Ken White]

...
Personally, I think the way we've defined "victory" and "defeat" in Iraq - and all the politics that surrounds those issues - pretty much guarantees that even if you can see what's actually happening, not very many people are going to agree with you.
...

I'm curious as to what those definitions are?

[Rank amateur]

I'm curious as to what those definitions are?

An excellent question. (I'm talking about layman's spin, but I haven't seen any coordinated effort by anyone to replace the spin with a more nuanced approach. Present company excluded of course. The dialog on council is always extremely intelligent and nuanced.)

Near as I can tell, anyone who wants to withdraw troops is admitting defeat and anyone who wants to stay supports victory. There doesn't seem to be a very big "weigh the costs and benefits" camp and those people seem to end up being quickly labelled defeatists. It might change after our election but both candidates have a vested interest in keeping the debate binary until then. I don't really see any candidate saying "I just saw a 15 slide PowerPoint that made me change my mind."

Interestingly, I found a game theory simulation that suggested we should be lowering our definition of victory. Which would suggest that I'm wrong or the country isn't being rationale.

[Ron Humphrey]

Near as I can tell, anyone who wants to withdraw troops is admitting defeat and anyone who wants to stay supports victory. There doesn't seem to be a very big "weigh the costs and benefits" camp and those people seem to end up being quickly labelled defeatists. It might change after our election but both candidates have a vested interest in keeping the debate binary until then. I don't really see any candidate saying "I just saw a 15 slide PowerPoint that made me change my mind."

Is that the idea that everyone including the GOI wants large amounts of American forces there for any longer than absolutely necessary is highly lacking a realistic assessment. Everyone wants the same thing for a variety of different reasons. The difference is to be found in the fact that some don't like it when the world doesn't move to their beat. A wise approach is to consider what can be done while maintaining a forward momentum towards a long term solution.

This doesn't fit to well with those who think that
A: The world can go to heck in a handbasket and well still be able to avoid suffering for it because we our US

B: How can we fund our five thousand plus govt gimme programs if we actually have to spend money trying to help stabilize countries who may not be able to do it on their own(for a variety of reasons)and which if we don't could and probably will cost us much more in the long run

Let me ask you a question. If you are hired to run an advertising campaign for blue shoes and get the contract for 3 million then two months after you start the company decides it isn't happy because the results aren't what they want them to be. And lets just throw in that one week after you got the job there was a world wide boycott of blue shoes because black is the new blue what would you tell them.

A: ok here's your money back sorry bout that

B: You have to give it a little more time because we're working behind the scenes to make blue the new purple

Cwhatever your answer is since i'm pretty sure you won't pick either A or B)

Interestingly, I found a game theory simulation that suggested we should be lowering our definition of victory. Which would suggest that I'm wrong or the country isn't being rationale.

As to that sometimes simulations are good for telling you that you might have to adjust your expectations in order to match them to the given scenario

[Rank amateur]

A: ok here's your money back sorry bout that

B: You have to give it a little more time because we're working behind the scenes to make blue the new purple

Cwhatever your answer is since i'm pretty sure you won't pick either A or B)

B, but when they asked "how long is a little more time?" I'd give them an answer, because this is what I do for a living and I know what a reasonable time is. I know how to set metrics and see if we're on the right track or not. I also know that if I don't get results it's because I screwed up. (None of my clients have ever made a mistake.)

I have a strong personal dislike of the terms victory and defeat attached to any COIN or nation building effort. The best one can hope for is a satisfactory outcome -- that obviously can vary dependent upon outlook.

We agree. (Although every time I say that, you say we don't.) I just think that once the commander in chief uses the terms victory and defeat it is extremely difficult to find middle ground. Now that I think about it, that's probably a more accurate expression of what I meant initially. If we hypothetically came to an acceptable outcome, I don't think many people would accept it. They'd still be looking for victory or looking back at all the mistakes. (It goes back to seeing what you want, biases, self images, allegiances etc. All that spin doctor stuff that has it's uses but can also cause problems.)

[Ken White]

This is not a good idea:

Originally Posted by Ken
A: ok here's your money back sorry bout that

B: You have to give it a little more time because we're working behind the scenes to make blue the new purple

Cwhatever your answer is since i'm pretty sure you won't pick either A or B)

This medium doesn't lend itself to the subtleties that direct communication allows and Ken didn't say that.

EDITED TO ADD: Other than not understanding your meaning, I don't personally have a problem with the technique but on an open board, it can cause confusion. Someone else sees it, takes it out of context and a month from now I get accused of saying "You have to give it a little more time..." I respond, correctly, that I've never said that, then he produces the 'quote.' no big thing but I try to quote people verbatim to avoid such problems.

That said, I suggest that I did not and would not offer you any money back because I have none of yours; if, as I suspect, you meant something sort of allegorical by that, it went right over my head???

I am not suggesting that you 'give it a little more time.' My view has been and is that we'll be there for many years, so no reason for me to ask for more time. No attempt to make anything into something it is not. I don't think anybody in DC or Iraq is trying to do that and I know I'm not. If, by that comment, you meant that what the Islamists say about victory or defeat is irrelevant, all I can do is suggest that you might want to give that some thought.

IOW, I think your message got lost in the medium...

B, but when they asked "how long is a little more time?" I'd give them an answer, because this is what I do for a living and I know what a reasonable time is.

And what would your answer be? Ten weeks? Ten months? Ten years? Make it too long and you'll lose, make it too short and you may get stuck with something you can't deliver. So what is your reasonable time? You do messages for a living, if you fail, your client may lose a buck or two and get a tax write off. If we fail in Iraq, even more lives than it's already cost will be at stake. You do it for a living but are lives at risk if you err? not to mention that the ol' fog of war is awfully hard to see through -- and harder to predict.

Not that Politicians don't ignore that and err...

I know how to set metrics and see if we're on the right track or not. I also know that if I don't get results it's because I screwed up. (None of my clients have ever made a mistake.)

Be nice if it were that simple. First, metrics and war do not mesh well; too many intangibles and unforeseeable unknowns. Second, a lot of of folks who are also good at metrics have set or are setting metrics on this one -- most have been wrong and I predict the next crop will be equally wrong.

Your clients must be politicians; they have the same ability -- every time there's a screw up it's never their fault...

We agree. (Although every time I say that, you say we don't.)

Then stop using the word!

I just think that once the commander in chief uses the terms victory and defeat it is extremely difficult to find middle ground.

Too true -- that's one of many reasons I object to the word, it sets up unreasonable -- even unrealizable -- expectations. Hate it when the Pols use it but they and the media I can excuse on grounds of ignorance. Harder to excuse the Generals who should know better.

Now that I think about it, that's probably a more accurate expression of what I meant initially. If we hypothetically came to an acceptable outcome, I don't think many people would accept it. They'd still be looking for victory or looking back at all the mistakes. (It goes back to seeing what you want, biases, self images, allegiances etc. All that spin doctor stuff that has it's uses but can also cause problems.)

Sure, that's the American way. The One third rule applies. 1/3 would object, 1/3 would agree and the middle third would split with a tilt to one side depending on how well, on balance, we came out of it. Always been that way and likely most always will. That's okay.

[Ron Humphrey]

B, but when they asked "how long is a little more time?" I'd give them an answer, because this is what I do for a living and I know what a reasonable time is. I know how to set metrics and see if we're on the right track or not. I also know that if I don't get results it's because I screwed up. (None of my clients have ever made a mistake.)
.)

As to this as Ken said metrics for real time decisions in war are pretty fuzzy and more often than not if one gets stuck on them one will probably get stuck

Also consider that the client not being liable for bad luck in an ad campaign at worst cost someone their livelihood. In War whether the "clients" like it or not if it goes wrong someone or many someones die. It is largely different doing risk management in markets vs in war and it would be better for all of us if some would come to realize that. Unfortunately probably won't happen because most that have that problem aren't really paying attention to the war itself but what propaganda value it holds for them

[Ken White]

...
Near as I can tell, anyone who wants to withdraw troops is admitting defeat and anyone who wants to stay supports victory. There doesn't seem to be a very big "weigh the costs and benefits" camp and those people seem to end up being quickly labelled defeatists. It might change after our election but both candidates have a vested interest in keeping the debate binary until then. I don't really see any candidate saying "I just saw a 15 slide PowerPoint that made me change my mind."

I suppose one could look at it that way. I have a strong personal dislike of the terms victory and defeat attached to any COIN or nation building effort. The best one can hope for is a satisfactory outcome -- that obviously can vary dependent upon outlook.

In any event, I think it's safe to say that if we do withdraw precipitously, the Islamists will claim 'victory' and thus trumpet our 'defeat.' That can have a detrimental long term effect albeit not probably a fatal one -- so any cost benefit analysis should consider that in some detail.

What the candidates now say and what they will do if elected and getting all the detailed classified briefings are more than likely to be quite different things. I was almost looking forward to Kerry being elected in '04 so I could watch him back and fill in December. You're correct that both do have an interest in keeping it binary until then, though.

Interestingly, I found a game theory simulation that suggested we should be lowering our definition of victory. Which would suggest that I'm wrong or the country isn't being rationale.

Americans. Not being rational? Surely you jest, Sir!

Heh -- I thought that was an American specialty...

In fairness to them, though, in this case they're using the worlds that ignorant politicians and media (and even the random General...) use. That misue of the words has skewed the meaning of them beyond all hope of redemption for this one, I'm afraid. This may not be the most politicized war we've ever had but it sure is the one with the widest communication (of sorts...).