Originally Posted by
Steve the Planner
For every complex problem there is a pefectly simple solution that is entriely wrong. H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Sage
I actually thought some of the earlier comments in this blog held a lot of insights.
Thinking about this problem in systemics: What kind of systems are we dealing with? Non-state, local/tribal, regional and cross-border, minimal governmental structures.
Somebody started out with the idea of closing off the Paki border, then a retort that (1) that is not possible; and (2) it is not desirable.
Then there was amish-mash of different ideas and strategies about how to "do something" or get out.
What systems dynamics approaches start with is an effort to identify all the basic complex systems and subsystems, and their interactions with each other. You start with what is there, not with what we would like it to be. You look at what's broken, not who is to blame. You figure out what the system (the peoples of these border and conflict areas) will realistically accept and the trade-offs associated with effecting your reasonably determined desired end states. Then you look for ways to modify, interact with, or improve the system's performance in some reasonably attainable manner not inconsistent with the desired end state.
I keep reading reports and opinions from some pretty well-informed folks about the various complex sub-systems, the minimalist governmental structure and resources, and the resourcefulness of opposition to us.
But nobody seems to have focused on putting a viable program or plan into motion that addresses the real system that is there, and what can credibly be accomplished by it. Just a lot of bits and pieces, and incoherent government-speak (or worse yet, military jargon). Folks bandying about old fashioned nation-state stuff about this country opr that country, and how to fix "it," when we all know that these kinds of places aren't really nation-states, and the problem definitions and solutions are well outside that kind of thinking.
Seems to me somebody ought to start defining these places based on the people (down to the smallest levels in the places that matter) that are there, what they are about, up to, or motivated by, and what, with our increasingly limited resources and capabilities, and the severe geography, weather, and economic limitations, we can realistically achieve.
Success in Afghanistan is a question, not an answer. What do we want to achieve in that real and complicated place, and how do we intend to attain it?
Steve
Bookmarks