Blending into the mindset of the Human Terrain

[Ken White]

I mean that -- but that does not mean I have to agree with them on some terms. For this one, as Wilf said,

Human Terrain is a meaningless phrase, or should be. There is terrain and their is the population. They are very different things. The population has social, political and religious beliefs - call it.. er culture?

To my mind, the Human Terrain phrase is demeaning to people (either friends, foes or neutrals), is terribly imprecise (and words can be important) and it can send a bad message in several respects not least that people can or should be mapped or cataloged (they can but you better be real careful how you do that and have a lot of people working on updates). IOW, I think it is not a good selection for a title of an effort required in COIN and similar ops. That said:

...disabusing one Of such silly notions as attributing supposed knowledge of the human condition as being on par with awareness of the balance of power in the weapons and physical terrain.

I don't think I said anything nearly like that. I just said humans weren't terrain. I did not say in any way that one did not absolutely have to know the people in ones AO and what their effect on the mission will be. OTOH, in that post you quoted, I did say this:

""Thus to try to equate people and the ground is to delude one self that a cursory recon will allow a great route to be chosen...""

That means that if you try to simplify people into a 'terrain' or general recon and use item; you're going to screw up. My gripe with 'human terrain' is that it can lead the ill informed to underplay the importance of the human dimension. It's a silly misleading phrase.

In other words just because I know where the weapons caches, airfields, command and control facilities, ports, etc are doesn't mean that I might not need to be aware of how I talk or interact with "X" human. Or that ignoring that may not cost me a whole lot more than I want to pay.

I agree. Please tell me how that interaction or talking equates to terrain in any way.

And remind me what the first 'T' and that 'C' in METT-TC represent, perhaps explaining in the process why they are two separate items...

[jmm99]

but at least I found a starting point for something I understand - Human Terrain Mapping, as most simply exemplified by the map of Sunni, Shia and mixed areas (p.19 of article); but more specifically:

Defining Tactical Human-Terrain Mapping

TF Dragon executed its data-collection effort through systematic people-to-people contact. The staff planned decentralized platoon-level patrols, conducted during daylight hours, that sought answers to specific questions about the population. These specific “information requirements” (IR) about each separate village and town included—

The boundaries of each tribal area (with specific attention to where they adjoined or overlapped).

Location and contact information for each sheik or village mukhtar and any other important people (government officials, Iraqi Security Forces, etc.).

Locations of mosques, schools, and markets.

Identification of the population’s daily habits (when they woke up, slept, shopped, etc.).

Nearest locations and checkpoints of Iraqi Security Forces.

Economic driving force (i.e., occupation and livelihood).

Employment and unemployment levels.

Population flow (i.e., people moving in or out of the AO).

Anti-coalition presence and activities.

Access to essential services (fuel, water, emergency care, fire response, etc).

Particular local population concerns and issues.

This seems a valid enough use of applying graphics (overlays, etc.) to show demonstratively the relationships between the population and its terrain (geography).

IIRC (always dangerous), something akin to that was suggested within the last two decades in Egypt by some civilian assistance agency re: the problem of collecting taxes, property ownership, etc. Seems Egypt had no records id'ing who lived where, owned what, leased what, etc. Solution (which I can't recall whether implemented or not) was what any rum-dum county tax equalization department has - a database of property "cards" mapping the data against the terrain (plat maps).

Seems that "Human Terrain" has morphed beyond those concepts into something I don't understand.

Agree with slap:

You don't need 14 college degrees either. I know some double clutchin detectives that could run most intell ops with 3x5 cards and I don't think there is a college degree between the whole bunch of them. But if you ended up on there to do list....they would map your terrain alright.

[Ken White]

Seems that "Human Terrain" has morphed beyond those concepts into something I don't understand.

and good for them for doing that kind of mapping, as Slap points out and as anyone who served above Rifle Platoon level in Viet Nam (knows not to mention above Cav Troop in the Indian wars or the Philippines in '01 -- 1901) it works.

While they did well to reinvent it (even though techniques are in several Intel Pams and Manuals or used to be...), they or someone somewhere did not do a good job of naming it.

You're correct, it has taken on a life of its own; jargon will do that -- and it is seldom helpful.

[Van]

Human terrain mapping is about...

Mapping, which is to say writing down and depicting, so the the Greek root graphia '-graphy' is appropriate.

Human, as in the catagorization of groups of humans, is consistent with the Greek root "ethnos". (Not 'anthro' as that is more inclusive, it doesn't carry the meaning of ordering of groups or classification.)

So Human terrain mapping could be called "ethnography"? Just like the British practiced in colonial India? As I get older and grumpier, my tolerance for adding new words to the 'buzzword bingo' chart wears thinner and thinner.

I disagree with the Wilf that human terrain mapping is meaningless. Terrain and populations are deeply inter-related, and effect each other (the Aral Sea provides an excellent case study in the interactions between terrain, culture, civics, history, and economics). The territorial behaviors of many cultures also lend themselves to a graphic depiction on a map (although this can lead to troubles too, when you consider topics like "Greater Serbia", "The Ottoman Empire", or "Persia"). Admittedly, 'human terrain' is dynamic and any ethnography will be a snapshot rather than a definative work, but how else do you capture the relevant information for the folks who are required to use said information?

On the other hand, the word 'terrain' in this context is rather like the pointy-haired boss refering to the people who work for him as resources.

[Ken White]

I don't think anyone has disagreed to any great extent with anything in your first four paragraphs.

I disagree with the Wilf that human terrain mapping is meaningless.

That's not what he said; he did say "Human Terrain is a meaningless phrase, or should be. There is terrain and their is the population. They are very different things. The population has social, political and religious beliefs - call it.. er culture?(emphasis added / kw)

On the other hand, the word 'terrain' in this context is rather like the pointy-haired boss refering to the people who work for him as resources.

Or worse...

Which is Wilf's point and mine. The skill and technique are older than all of us and needed, no question -- the term is just a very poor choice and not totally indicative of what one should be doing. Somewhere about 1/40th of the way into 45 years in and with the Armed Forces of the US I became totally convinced that if something can be mislabeled, misconstrued and misused, preferably all three, it will be. All the rest of that time just confirmed it. Repeatedly...

[Ron Humphrey]

While I recognize the wisdom in what you all are stating and yes as many have mentioned the current reinventions have been markedly less than stellar that unfortunately still leaves us with how come it had to be reinvented in the first place.

If somethings important enough how else do you get it back so those who knew it best can reshape it correctly than to throw it on the table in whatever form or format you can?

[Ken White]

It is particularly bad in the Armed forces and more particularly in the Army -- and that will not change until three things occur. (1) We inculcate in schoolkids the importance of history and the NEED to avoid wasting effort on reinvention. (2) The personnel system stops insisting on up or out; on moves every three years (to better train and round out the troops -- or to justify jobs for the Personnel Managers? Try to lay off the excess in the Hoffman Building and Congress will be breathing down your neck); that forced lack of continuity is why we don't have six years in Iraq -- we have six one year tours in Iraq. (3) We can tune egos and the overwhelming desire to 'do it my way' can be stifled. Commanders think they 'own' units -- they do not (the term "My Soldiers" was made obsolete by A. Lincoln some time ago) and they 'own' battlespace -- they do not, they operate on it.

That owenership shtick makes them reluctant to accept advice or help -- particularly from anyone they out rank, don't know or don't like or whose PME credential are less. They also, in too many, not all, cases reject the written word because as one Colonel told me "...you can't trust that stuff; I remember when I was a doctrine writer at Benning, I didn't have a clue what I was doing." Let me emphasize that there are many -- most -- to whom those comments do not apply but they do apply to a great number (and the CSMs are worse ).

So, really long way of getting to the point -- you're probably never going to be able to tune the egos. Fixing the Per system is in the very hard box. Fortunately, the schools are getting better. Short answer -- reinvention will likely be with us always.

The answer to your important question:

"If somethings important enough how else do you get it back so those who knew it best can reshape it correctly than to throw it on the table in whatever form or format you can?'

Is, I think, a two parter. First, who decides if it's important -- critical question, allies to all my garbage spouted above.

A lot of stuff that isn't important gets 'saved' by people over impressed with their or a unit's accomplishments or who just have skewed values or perceptions; that stuff clutters the system and can obscure the really important stuff. That is not to say that lessons learned and recorded aren't important or necessary -- they are, it's just that human nature is going to put some filler in there and the initial items will almost be overlong due to recollections of where Heebley was when the RPG hit -- which may not really be germane to the lesson. If it's a good lesson, it get's retained, edited and improved over time..

Secondly, you use CALL, the forums on AKO and such -- so we are getting a whole lot better. It's not perfect but it works pretty well. More importantly, we recall that every NCO and every Officer are trainers -- so the good stuff that works gets passed on and most of it gets captured as doctrine or in training material. It is not fool proof but for humans, it works pretty well.

Take Human Terrain. I once knew who coined that but I'm old and have forgotten. It made some sense at the time and it is a form of shorthand, it's jargon, just not very good jargon. Wilf and I aren't the only ones to knock it.

So. It'll likely get changed or die a natural death (and no major harm done if it does not) -- but demographic mapping, knowing your AO and having enough cultural knowledge to know what to avoid and what to look for have been around for centuries. Any Army that does a lot of COIIN doesn't lose that skill; one like ours that deliberately avoided COIN for many years will lose those kinds of skills.

They come back quickly, the key is not to try to put them back in the attic post-Afghanistan -- and I have this vague recollection Jedburgh earlier commented on the process and mentioned a pub...

Get me started on a lazy Saturday, will ya... All that can be summarized with 'reinvention is a human foible we have to live with, the system ain't broke, it's even getting better -- it's just really slow and has the hiccups.'

[slapout9]

jmm99 and Entropy and Ron,

Here is how I learned it as ''Identifying Insurgent Infrastructure'' As you will see this special forces officer was so frustrated at how to do this that he resorted to finding out about standard police criminal organization analysis techniques, which is what I have been preaching since I came here. This shows how to do it by hand and is very useful. I used to use a crime scene template or traffic accident template and do them on my clipboard or desk.

This is part of my SBW book list Once you read this apply it to your local political situation or where you work....it will be fun and eye opening. for some reason the file link below will let you read and print but I could not copy it to my computer???? anybody know how to fix this. I already had a hard copy but would like to save one for the digits as Jedburgh calls them...enjoy your Saturday night reading.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf

[jmm99]

file, "Identifying Insurgent Infrastructure" (Googled it) loaded and saved (in Adobe Reader 7.0.5 9/23/2005 - old version & old computer) from the link:

at www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin

add /GetTRDoc?AD=ADA225486&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

This is a kind of nutsy file and link.

---------------------------------
Now, why is it that people who are very brain alive when doing their jobs, become brain dead when the same thing comes up outside the job ?

Betcha that Slap the Cop knows well that anything from the Web viewed on your computer is saved somewhere on your computer. In this case, saved to one of the subdirectories of Temporary Internet Files - as GetTRDoc[1].pdf

Further instruction in Law Enforcement 501C will be at my normal low rates (special discount for Alabama cops).

[Majormarginal]

That's because cops are paid for what they know and do. Computer skills are secondary.

[William F. Owen]

So Human terrain mapping could be called "ethnography"? Just like the British practiced in colonial India? As I get older and grumpier, my tolerance for adding new words to the 'buzzword bingo' chart wears thinner and thinner.

Same here and I agree

I disagree with the Wilf that human terrain mapping is meaningless. Terrain and populations are deeply inter-related, and effect each other (the Aral Sea provides an excellent case study in the interactions between terrain, culture, civics, history, and economics). The territorial behaviors of many cultures also lend themselves to a graphic depiction on a map (although this can lead to troubles too, when you consider topics like "Greater Serbia", "The Ottoman Empire", or "Persia"). Admittedly, 'human terrain' is dynamic and any ethnography will be a snapshot rather than a definative work, but how else do you capture the relevant information for the folks who are required to use said information?

I disagree with Wilf also, and I never said it, as an activity was meaningless. I said the words "Human Terrain" are meaningless. Commanders need information about the population. They always have and always will and in good armies they have always gone and got it, by whatever means.

Now.... It is in no way proven to me that you need civilians in HTTs, because soldiers can be selected and trained to do the job, and HTTs could be called... Reconnaissance Patrols, or Reconnaissance Teams... dunno. Doesn't seem like a stretch.

[slapout9]

I found it. I just got a new compter and it has windows vista or something like that. Instead of being saved to my documents it was in my photos This new technology is something else.

[jmm99]

Slap just had to be jolted out of his state as a new Windows Vista user - and back into being a cop. Once he reached that state, he was fine - good example of human population reaction to new terrain.

[Van]

I never said it, as an activity was meaningless. I said the words "Human Terrain" are meaningless.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! I abase myself for this gross error, I am ashamed, and relieved that my ethnic heritage doesn't require an act that would require getting blood out of the carpet. Gross exaggeration aside, I apologize for my failure to read more carefully.

Now.... It is in no way proven to me that you need civilians in HTTs, because soldiers can be selected and trained to do the job, and HTTs could be called... Reconnaissance Patrols, or Reconnaissance Teams... dunno. Doesn't seem like a stretch.

I recently read a RAND study "Analytic Support to Intelligence in Counterinsurgencies", and the light came on. A fundamental difference (at least in the U.S. I won't speculate about other militaries) between so-called 'conventional conflict' and Small Wars is that in conventional confict, we've systematically studied and trained to fight the opposition for decades. Should we get to the point where we haven't taken mechanized forces maneuvering against each other seriously, that will become the unconventional. (And I'm sure several Council members will say 'Well, duh', and again, mea culpa.)

The relevance here:
The decades of training for conventional conflict, training for a lethal kreigspiel between professionals has desensitized us to the need for a breadth of training that was generally only offered to Special Forces officers. If you accept the premise that Small Wars are the norm rather than the exception (and I do, based on the number of years of U.S. history that have been spent engaged in SW vs. 'conventional war'), then it follows that we have had a fundamental failure to weight things like basic ethnography appropriately compared to marksmanship, combat tactics, etc. Bringing civilians to the battlefield was a stunningly flawed decision, driven by the classic "good, fast, cheap; you're not going to get them all" approach to problem solving (we chose "fast" at the expense of the others).

Originally Posted by Ken
I became totally convinced that if something can be mislabeled, misconstrued and misused, preferably all three, it will be...

Now there is a curmudgeon I can believe in. Yeah, this is as frustrating and annoying as TQM policies from people who never read Deming.

[William F. Owen]

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! I abase myself for this gross error, I am ashamed, and relieved that my ethnic heritage doesn't require an act that would require getting blood out of the carpet. Gross exaggeration aside, I apologize for my failure to read more carefully.

Eyh... no problem, but thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify

A fundamental difference (at least in the U.S. I won't speculate about other militaries) between so-called 'conventional conflict' and Small Wars is that in conventional confict, we've systematically studied and trained to fight the opposition for decades. Should we get to the point where we haven't taken mechanized forces maneuvering against each other seriously, that will become the unconventional. (And I'm sure several Council members will say 'Well, duh', and again, mea culpa.)

Duh, but important and insightful none the less. Yes I believe you are correct. The rigid study of Soviet Operations and tactics, does not serve us well, once it becomes the institutional bedrock on which our G2 lives.

Having said that, we wouldn't have all the utter BS that got written about Hezbollah if someone with a sound Soviet Studies background had bothered to rebut all the silly things folks came out with.

Understanding how your enemy works is not that hard, if you have the minimum amount of brain cells. We have 1,000 years of relevant object lessons so it's not to hard. - but I am sure there is someone at SAMs, CAC or similar, that will make it extremely complex.

Insurgencies and/or major armies are not that dissimilar in aims and means once studied in detail. However there is a human need to build your enemy 10 foot high, and folks make good money doing it.

[MikeF]

We still have to be ready for full scale combat. It wouldn't be wise to get rid of the hardware. That is not what I meant. Full scale wars like WO1 or WO2 are not likely anymore. Our weaponry and the way the information flows will hamper any possible succes in the latent phase. The approach should be a complementary one in which every soldier is trained in an 3BW environment.

Hi Coined. I'll play devil's advocate (or COL Gentile) for this one.

If we look at today's environment as similar to that of the late 1800's/early 1900's, then there is every indication that we could be headed towards a world war in the next 20-30 years.

Similarities:

1. Terrorist = Anarchist
2. Transition from Industrial Age to Globalization/Information Age = Transition from Agrarian to Industrial Age
3. Civil Wars/Manifest Destiny/Great White Fleet = GWOT/Crisis of the Nation State
4. Transcendentalist = Post-Modernist

Just one way to look at the current dilemma. I'm not sure if a world war is likely, but it is a reasonable hypothesis given the restlessness and disruption in the current world particularly when money is involved. Remember, WW1 was supposed to be the "war to end all wars." How'd that work out for us?

v/r

Mike

[marct]

Human Terrain is a meaningless phrase, or should be. There is terrain and their is the population. They are very different things. The population has social, political and religious beliefs - call it.. er culture?....
If we can't use a coherent professional language, free from silly jargon and buzz words, we'll start calling rifles "Bang Bang sticks."

LOLOL - love it, Wilf!

Personally, my distastte for the term "human terrain" is somewhat more prosaic - I think it encourages people to look at other people as if they were "things". This is, IMO, totally de-humanizing to both the object of perception and the perceiver. It is also inherently stupid, because it means that once you start viewing a group of people as things, you are more likely to assume that they will be incapable of coming up with anything original, so you will be more likely to be surprised.

[slapout9]

LOLOL - love it, Wilf!

Personally, my distastte for the term "human terrain" is somewhat more prosaic - I think it encourages people to look at other people as if they were "things". This is, IMO, totally de-humanizing to both the object of perception and the perceiver. It is also inherently stupid, because it means that once you start viewing a group of people as things, you are more likely to assume that they will be incapable of coming up with anything original, so you will be more likely to be surprised.

Hi marct, agree it sounds like you are calling them human dirt and are going to stand on them....not a good recipe. marct as a PhD that has a bunch of good schoolin weren't you able to keep these guys straight. Just call it human infrastructure or human networks anything but terrain

[William F. Owen]

Personally, my distastte for the term "human terrain" is somewhat more prosaic - I think it encourages people to look at other people as if they were "things". This is, IMO, totally de-humanizing to both the object of perception and the perceiver. It is also inherently stupid, because it means that once you start viewing a group of people as things, you are more likely to assume that they will be incapable of coming up with anything original, so you will be more likely to be surprised.

Well your reasons are a great deal more logical and morally justified. I'm just holding out for some sort of semantic precision.

My objection to "Human Terrain" - beyond the poor use of English - is that is inventing a problem, to invite a solution that promotes the "complexity agendas" aimed at making a few folks look smart, and not much help to the Marine or Soldier.

[marct]

Hi Slap,

Hi marct, agree it sounds like you are calling them human dirt and are going to stand on them....not a good recipe. marct as a PhD that has a bunch of good schoolin weren't you able to keep these guys straight. Just call it human infrastructure or human networks anything but terrain

As I understand it, the decision to use the term "Human Terrain" was, in effect, a marketing one . One things I've noticed is that when you are marketing something, you aim towards the targets prejudices....

Well your reasons are a great deal more logical and morally justified. I'm just holding out for some sort of semantic precision.

My objection to "Human Terrain" - beyond the poor use of English - is that is inventing a problem, to invite a solution that promotes the "complexity agendas" aimed at making a few folks look smart, and not much help to the Marine or Soldier.

Wilf, I actually agree with you on both of those points. I have a real problem with semantic imprecision, especially when it leads to people getting killed! As for the term being used to justify spending large sums of money on people who can "put old wine in new bottles", I do get a touch peeved about it.

I remember reading an article years ago about how consultants acted as a type of "shaman" for organizations - they would come in and provide a "divine" justification for decisions that the organizational power brokers would have made anyway. It reminded me of a story my father used to tell about his first consulting contract.

My father had been hired to go into an organization and "fix" the problem with efficiency. After a couple of days, he realized that the source of the problem was the owner of the company. When he went in to talk with him, the owner said (I'm paraphrasing) "Son, I know I'm a son of a bitch. I hired you to tell me how to get my employees to deal with it."

I think your point about creating problems is a crucial on. In his really long post that I haven't got around to replying to yet (sorry Steve!), actually provides a really good example of this process. If an organization has to constantly learn how to create a wheel, then it must also have a very large budget.

Years ago, I read a novel by John Dalmas (I can't remember which on off the top of my head), where he made the observation that organizations are designed to create problems, not solutions. This has stuck in my head for a long time and, I think, has more than a germ of reality to it. Without getting into some really wonky metaphysics, organizations actually do create, hmmm, let's call them "problem-spaces", in which and through which individuals get to play at creating "solutions". If the "problem" actually disappeared, however, that would mean that no one could "play" there anymore, which would disappoint a lot of people!