Deterrence of Irregular Threats

[TheCurmudgeon]

I don't think that you (the US) are anywhere near such a situation myself, but the primary guarentor of your freedoms is not the soldier manning the ramparts, it is the informed and socially active citizen who monitors the government.

Ohhhhh, I feel SO much better now!

You have been to America, right?

[Taiko]

The belief that the US should have a role of the guarantor of international order, is purely optional. It is one the US chose, for political reasons. It is not one the whole world thrust upon it. Point being, the US could easily give it up.

Agreed, but the cost of giving up the role may far outweight the benefits. Having said that, the US did, in my interpretation, have the role trust on it by no other reason than it had the capability to play a pivitol role as a balancer in both Eutrope and Asia. In addition, it had no other choice than to become the ballwalk against communist expansion. It had to remain engaged internationally after the second world war, and not return to isolationism, because it needed a stable foreign market. Thats my POV anyway.

MarcT: maintaining international order is different to enforcing democracries on totalitarian states?

[marct]

You have been to America, right?

Okay, so I was on a rhetorical soap box !

[marct]

MarcT: maintaining international order is different to enforcing democracries on totalitarian states?

Depends on how you define things but, regardless of definitional quibbles, Wilf's answer still works .

[davidbfpo]

Awhile back on this thread multi-national corporations (MNC) appeared and this article links: Rio-Tinto Zinc, PR China and Australia - with the PRC claiming RTZ has spied on the and impacted their economy: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...espionage.html

davidbfpo

[Dayuhan]

That is a very good question. I am not saying that it automatically hurts the people living there, just that in some cases it does. The "hurt" inflicted should be split into short term (e.g. strip mining, child labour, excessive pollution, etc.) and long term social problems.

Certainly these problems exist in much of the world... but the degree to which they can be attributed to multinational corporations in general and US-based multinationals specifically is highly debatable. If you wade past the politically motivated rhetoric and get out into the field in the developing world you very quickly find that the real trouble spots in the pollution and child labor are locally owned enterprises churning out ultra-cheap no-brand goods, not multinationals. The unbranded cheap sneakers that activists wear to show they are not attached to brands are likely to be made in factories sporting conditions far worse than anything a MNC ever dreamed of.

A second type of "cash crop" shows up with raw materials such as old, copper, bauxite, manganese, diamonds, etc. Often, access to these resources are auctioned off by their governments and the payment for them goes back to those governments. The people who actually live in the area effected by the resource extraction process don't see much of the benefits of the resource sales. As an example of this, take a look at the simmering insurgency in the Niger delta.

The Niger Delta is a good example of how an astonishingly corrupt national government can shift blame onto a corporation. Of course Shell has to deal with the Nigerian Government: that's what the law says in Nigeria, and Shell has to follow the law. Taking care of the people in the Delta is the responsibility of the Nigerian Government, and Shell pays them more than enough to do it. Of course they don't... but is Shell supposed to enforce Nigeria's derisory anti-corruption laws? Remove the Nigerian Government?

Mining has been an issue, but it's certainly not primarily a US MNC issue... how many US Companies are among the top dozen? Of 44 major mining companies surveyed in KPMGs mining review, all of 7 are US-based. If you really want to see mining companies making a mess, look at the operations of Chinese companies in Africa, running up a record of bribery, environmental destruction, and labor abuse that makes BHP Billiton look like the Sierra Club.

The long term danger here is two-fold: economies that are based on a few, primary sector exports and the concentration of capital in the hands of a) foreign corporations and b) local "elites". Consider, by way of analogic example, how much "development" or "humanitarian aid" money gets funnelled into the pockets of the same local "elites".

Very true... but do we expect MNCs to change the way these countries are run? In what developing nations is capital really concentrated in the hands of foreign corporations? It's worth noting that the corporations actually have productive operations that hire people, while the local elites tend to salt their money away outside the country.

Having said that, I also noted earlier that this doesn't have to be a problem. Several nations have been in this situation and developed some very innovative options to avoid the long term effects: Dubai and the Sultinate of Brunei come to mind.

Dubai doesn't export resources, as it has none. You mean Abu Dhabi perhaps, or the UAE? Overasll I'd say the UAE, Qatar, and Kuwait do pretty well, and even the Saudis have made huge steps forward in the last 5-6 years, not that you'd know it from the US media. Of course they have the advantage of small indigenous populations and very valuable resources. Still, American companies do not run these countries... neither do they run Nigeria, Angola, or the Congo.

Would these people be happier not selling to the US? Probably they wouldn't care if they can sell their materials somewhere. But, in national economies where you have a highly skewed Lorenz Curve, the perception will increasingly be that the US (or whoever is buying) is supporting the elites - this makes for a potentially fruitfull recruitment ground for insurgents.

As I mentioned above, "whoever is buying" is muich less likely to be the US than many realize... as we've lost heavy industry, we've also reduced our buying of primary materials. One wonders if this formulation will apply to the Chinese...

The issue of lower prices is also a key one, as you so rightly note. It is, when all is said and done, however, an extremely short term issue. Anyone with two neurons to rub together is probably aware of the loss leader tactics used by some companies to destroy their competition and gain market control (doesn't mean that we don't fall for the same trick over and over again).

That would be a concern in a single-supplier situation... but how many of those do you see around? The world is a very competitive place these days.

Market protectionism is, I agree, a from of subsidy: it trades guarenteed access to a marketplace in return for higher prices and POing your trading partners. And, whether or not it will help the US in the long run, it certainly did historically (vide the development of your steel industry) and you are still using it in both the steel and lumber industries (to name a few).

We do it in agriculture more than anywhere, and if we really wanted to help the developing world we'd scrap agricultural subsidies and demand that Europe do the same (which would have the added benefit of pissing off the French). Wherever we do it is not good for us, in the long run. Possibly necessary at the early stages of industrialization, but for a mature industrial state it is counterproductive.

On education I think we mostly agree... though I suspect that astrology does not pay better than astronony, the appeal lies in much lower entry barriers.

While the world has many problems and blaming them on multinational corporations is popular, I'd say the reality is far more complex, and "subversion" by corporations is hardly a significant security problem. I don't see much there that can't be managed by the traditional tools of legislation and regulation. Of course the US, Canada, or the UK cannot legislate for Angola, Vietnam, or Mexico... but is that a bad thing? At the end of the day, if that power existed, would it be used for their benefit, or for ours?

[marct]

Hi Dayuhan,

Actually, we aren't that far apart. I tend to talk about issues as adaptive processes inside of and acting upon cultural matrices, which can lead to some confusion.

Certainly these problems exist in much of the world... but the degree to which they can be attributed to multinational corporations in general and US-based multinationals specifically is highly debatable.

Quite true at the present time. The era of US corporations dominating the world in that sense was, pretty much, from about 1945 - 1970 or so. Culturally, that is enough to create an emotional connotation that skews perceptions.

The Niger Delta is a good example of how an astonishingly corrupt national government can shift blame onto a corporation. Of course Shell has to deal with the Nigerian Government: that's what the law says in Nigeria, and Shell has to follow the law. Taking care of the people in the Delta is the responsibility of the Nigerian Government, and Shell pays them more than enough to do it. Of course they don't... but is Shell supposed to enforce Nigeria's derisory anti-corruption laws? Remove the Nigerian Government?

Is it the result of the Nigerian government? Sure, some of it is, but there are also other options that are available. For example, Shell can go beyond the legal requirements of Nigeria and engage in local development work (which they do a bit of). Done properly, the effect would be to shift local resentment towards the government and away from the corporation. This tactic has been used by several MNCs over the past couple of decades, and it works pretty well.

Very true... but do we expect MNCs to change the way these countries are run? In what developing nations is capital really concentrated in the hands of foreign corporations? It's worth noting that the corporations actually have productive operations that hire people, while the local elites tend to salt their money away outside the country.

Do you seriously expect them not to ? As to their "productive operations", you might want to check out how the auto industry started to operate in the mid-1980's. Basically, what they would do is move in capital, work with local elites to establish production plants, and recoup their entire investment, with a decent profit (~20% or so) over 5 years. After that, they could walk away from the plants. The trick was that they were using a floating pool of capital and retaining control over distribution of the final product (i.e. market access). So, yes, the locals would have jobs for 5-6 years, but the auto companies also had major political leverage after that.

Dubai doesn't export resources, as it has none.

Economically, Dubai is most famous for its oil and gas production, which only makes up less than 6% of the state's economy, and only 2% of the UAE's economy. Dubai contributes 82.2% of the UAE's non-oil exports.

The non-oil exports that come from Dubai are mainly traditional products and commodities and manufactured items. The traditional producs include things such as dried and frozen fish, dates, hides, and scrap metals. Most of these exports go to other Gulf States, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. This sector is minor compared to the manufacturing exports.
The manufactured products that Dubai exports include liquefied gase, clothing, cement, electric cables and aluminum ingots. The majority of the importers of these goods are Japan, India, China, Taiwan, and the United States.
Source

As I mentioned above, "whoever is buying" is muich less likely to be the US than many realize... as we've lost heavy industry, we've also reduced our buying of primary materials. One wonders if this formulation will apply to the Chinese...

Sure, this is all about a process influencing local cultural perceptions.

That would be a concern in a single-supplier situation... but how many of those do you see around? The world is a very competitive place these days.

Doesn't have to be; it is about the process that creates single-supplier situations and then turns around and controls the regulation of that situation.

We do it in agriculture more than anywhere, and if we really wanted to help the developing world we'd scrap agricultural subsidies and demand that Europe do the same (which would have the added benefit of pissing off the French).

I'd forgotten about that when I was posting earlier . As a Canadian, I tend to be more aware of the areas that we are in conflict with you on in protectionist terms.

Wherever we do it is not good for us, in the long run. Possibly necessary at the early stages of industrialization, but for a mature industrial state it is counterproductive.

Economically, I tend to agree. When it comes to politics, that is another thing all together . It is very easy to sell protectionism in the US political arena. Of course, the same politicos who sell it then yell the loudest when the retaliation hits....

On education I think we mostly agree... though I suspect that astrology does not pay better than astronony, the appeal lies in much lower entry barriers.

Definitely part of the appeal, but the payout potential is perceived as being better in astrology. Consider how many famous astronomers there are verses how many famous astrologers. Also I would note that pretty much every daily newspaper carries astrology sections, while almost none seem to carry astronomy sections. And, as an added bonus, the general market place is much larger (~60% of the US population last I heard) and the capital costs are much lower .

While the world has many problems and blaming them on multinational corporations is popular, I'd say the reality is far more complex, and "subversion" by corporations is hardly a significant security problem.

This is where our different backgrounds turn around and cause confusion. I agree that blaming the MNCs is quite popular (and, also, less accurate), but that was, in part, my point: they are easy targets with a long history. Is it a significant security problem? I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I don't see much there that can't be managed by the traditional tools of legislation and regulation. Of course the US, Canada, or the UK cannot legislate for Angola, Vietnam, or Mexico... but is that a bad thing? At the end of the day, if that power existed, would it be used for their benefit, or for ours?

Hunh! Both the US and Canada (don't know about the UK) have for the past while been legislation for the actions of their citizens in foreign countries (1997 in Canada I believe; it came out of the FGM debates here). While we can't legislate for other countries, we have already established legal precedent for legislating for the actions of our citizens and agents in other countries.

Cheers,

Marc

[Dayuhan]

Hi Dayuhan,
Actually, we aren't that far apart. I tend to talk about issues as adaptive processes inside of and acting upon cultural matrices, which can lead to some confusion.

I see that... and I tend to ask "what exactly do you propose that we do about it?" Both legitimate perspectives, of course...

Quite true at the present time. The era of US corporations dominating the world in that sense was, pretty much, from about 1945 - 1970 or so. Culturally, that is enough to create an emotional connotation that skews perceptions.

I agree... but given that the past is not amenable to revision, what are we supposed to do about it? Are we trying to solve yesterday's problem, or tomorrow's?

Is it the result of the Nigerian government? Sure, some of it is, but there are also other options that are available. For example, Shell can go beyond the legal requirements of Nigeria and engage in local development work (which they do a bit of). Done properly, the effect would be to shift local resentment towards the government and away from the corporation. This tactic has been used by several MNCs over the past couple of decades, and it works pretty well.

Not a bad idea, and I don't entirely disgree... one must be aware, though, that poorly calculated development work can do as much harm as good, and that Shell's expertise is in producing oil, not development work. Another factor is that any development work that succeeds in empowering local communities in the Niger Delta is likely to be seen as a threat in Abuja. There are often political and social complications when companies step outside what they know and dabble in what they don't. In any event Shell's activities in Nigeria shouldn't be raising anti-US sentiment... are the Nigerians pissed off at the Brits and the Dutch?

As to their "productive operations", you might want to check out how the auto industry started to operate in the mid-1980's. Basically, what they would do is move in capital, work with local elites to establish production plants, and recoup their entire investment, with a decent profit (~20% or so) over 5 years. After that, they could walk away from the plants. The trick was that they were using a floating pool of capital and retaining control over distribution of the final product (i.e. market access). So, yes, the locals would have jobs for 5-6 years, but the auto companies also had major political leverage after that.

Are you saying that after 5 years they would close the plants? Why? They still need the product (unless of course they're going out of business, in wh, and if a plant is productive and economical, what's the gain in closing it and opening somewhere else?

Doesn't have to be; it is about the process that creates single-supplier situations and then turns around and controls the regulation of that situation.

How does sourcing components from other countries create a single-supplier situation? We buy lots of things from Chinese companies, but how many of them can we not buy elsewhere if we get a better deal?

Economically, I tend to agree. When it comes to politics, that is another thing all together . It is very easy to sell protectionism in the US political arena. Of course, the same politicos who sell it then yell the loudest when the retaliation hits....

Given that sound economic policies are often unpopular, how do you maintain sound economic policies in a democracy? Hard question, and nobody's come up with a fully convincing solution yet. Much of our current economic dislocation could have been avoided if politicians were willing to bite the bullet and take steps that were necessary but unpopular. Hard thing to do, in a democracy.

Is it a significant security problem? I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Is there a security problem there that cannot be managed by the existing tools of legislation and regulation. Certainly deterrence should not be difficult to manage, given that the shares of MNCs trade on public exchanges and their headquarters are located in Western cities. We're not likely to need Predator drones or covert ops to deal with the threat of renegade law-breaking CEOs. A warrant and a few policemen will suffice.

Hunh! Both the US and Canada (don't know about the UK) have for the past while been legislation for the actions of their citizens in foreign countries (1997 in Canada I believe; it came out of the FGM debates here). While we can't legislate for other countries, we have already established legal precedent for legislating for the actions of our citizens and agents in other countries.

We can, to sopme extent, legislate the actions of our citizens in other countries. We cannot legislate for those countries. African leaders want to be bribed, we tell our companies not to bribe them, they make deals with the Chinese instead. Whether this benefits the average African (or, in the long run, the Chinese) remains to be seen.

[marct]

OP259 Corporations and Counterinsurgency. August 24, 2009. William Rosenau, Peter Chalk, Renny McPherson, Michelle Parker, Austin Long

Like nongovernmental organizations and private military companies, large multinational corporations (MNCs) can play significant roles in zones of violent conflict. Any comprehensive conflict analysis needs to understand these roles, especially as they relate to counterinsurgency. Using a set of three case studies, the authors explore MNC operations in Liberia, Papua New Guinea, and the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. The case studies highlight the activities of the MNCs that were intended to shape their violent environment and protect their infrastructure and personnel. Policymakers may be tempted to leverage corporate activities. However, corporate actions, no matter how well intentioned, can have less-than-benign consequences. Moreover, any potential “subcontracting” to MNCs would raise questions about accountability, legitimacy, and state responsibilities.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP259/

I haven't had a chance to go through it yet, but I thought it was worth posting.

[slapout9]

I haven't had a chance to go through it yet, but I thought it was worth posting.

Part of the problem about MNC'c is that they can create the "Effects of War" without firing a shot. And because they are not directly shooting at somebody the Western logical-compartmental-mentality thinks that it is not War until it is to late. Much like the older COIN writers talk about the Guvmint not realizing that an insurgency exists until it is well underway. Armed Capitalist vs. Armed Social Workers yea, I just invented that.

[Bob's World]

Thanks to everyone for all of the insights shared on this thread. Since I posted this I completed a presentation to flesh out the idea, and have sparked the interest of both the planners at Strategic Command; as well as getting my own boss to open his mind to the possibility that his mantra of "AQ cannot be deterred" may not be quite as absolute as he once believed.

I am framing up a couple of articles this weekend. The first with my boss's name attached that lays out the concept of Full-Spectrum Deterrence as a new way at looking at the comprehensive deterrence mission; with minor treatment of deterrence of irregular threats. The second will be with just my byline (I'm comfortable with being a bit more provocative) that takes on head to head the premise that an over-all campaign that is focused more on deterring AQ rather than defeating them is far more likely to produce the global strategic effects that we seek, and that in fact the defeat approach has actually made the strategic environment worse over the past 7 years of engagement.

As I flesh out key concepts I will chum the intellectual waters of the SWJ community with them to see what the sharks think.

[Ken White]

On both articles. Looking forward to them...

[Surferbeetle]

From the BBC: Venice: Majesty and melancholy

Until the building in the mid-nineteenth century of the road and railway bridge linking the mainland with the islands on which Venice rose from the waters, the city was a natural fortress.

It was the bastion of a small, but powerful seafaring merchant nation which for many centuries dominated trade in the Mediterranean.

Venice is the adoptive home of the Evangelist Saint Mark, his body stolen from Alexandria and brought North by a bunch of merchant adventurers to embellish the gilded basilica which now bears his name, in order to provide Holy protection for their city.

The Venetian Lion, the symbol of Saint Mark, is portrayed all over the city.

The Victorians loved Venice. The poet Robert Browning died there, so did Richard Wagner. John Ruskin found inspiration from its stones.

[Entropy]

On both articles. Looking forward to them...

What Ken said.

[slapout9]

What Ken said.

What Entroy said.

[William F. Owen]

What Ken said.

What Entroy said.

In on the guns. Switches on. Cleared in hot. FAC in sight.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Taiko,

How do you explain your concept of deterrence to them? After all, they are your allies are they not? Do you tell Japan to go its own way because you think that non-state actors pose a bigger threat to US interests than China or North Korea?

Taiko, I'm not sure where you're going with your argument, so pardon me if I take it out of the intended context, but I don't think anyone is implying that irregular threats are a greater threat than potentially hostile nation-states. So called traditional (nation states) and irregular threats have been a reality for at least a couple hundred of years and will continue to be a threat for the foreseeable future.

I guess the level of the threat depends on where you sit. Since there is no nation state that I'm aware that desires to invade China or the United States, the most probable threat to their homeland is the irregular threat. The Chinese have to deal with a range of ethnic identity groups in western China that challenges their sovreignty, while the U.S. must contend with Al Qaeda and related groups, environmental extremists, narcoterrorists from Mexico, and the list goes on. That is what we deal with on a day to day basis, but obviously a North Korean attack on South Korea would change the priority "if" it happened.

Come to think of it name one non-state actor who has the capability to do serious harm to the US? By serious I mean the same level of violence and destruction that North Korea, China or Iran could do to your allies and US troops stationed in some of those countries.

Let's face it, Al Qaeda created a lot of damage on 9/11 and the damage went beyond the number of casualties and physical infrastructure damage created. It clearly was an attack that changed the world in many ways. As severe as a North Korean attack on South Korea may be (though the North would quickly be beat back), and although the repercussions from such an attack would be global (at least economically), I don't think it would have the same impact as the 9/11 attack. The 9/11 attack was an attack on globalism, modernization, the West, etc., not just an attack on one country as an attack on Seoul would be. Which group can inflict grave damage? My guess is it is the group that obtains a weapon of mass destruction, probably a biological weapon and the group is willing to use it. What's more dangerous? Since we have mechanisms in place to deter or respond effectively to an attack from State, I'll argue an attack from a non-state actor is more dangerous, because it can come from any number of wacko groups that we don't currently have the ability to deter, thus I think an attack from the non-state actor is more probable and harder to prevent, thus more dangerous.

[TheLapsedPacifist]

Bill,

I'm temporally embarressed at the moment, so possibly not at 100% but help me reconcile your comments...

"I don't think anyone is implying that irregular threats are a greater threat than potentially hostile nation-states."

...with...

"I'll argue an attack from a non-state actor is more dangerous, because it can come from...groups that we don't currently have the ability to deter...attack from the non-state actor is more probable and harder to prevent, thus more dangerous"

And which non-state actors are more capable than a state? Few. And of those who is a direct threat to, say, the USA? None.

[TheLapsedPacifist]

Bob,

Firstly, thanks for the chum quote - that's a keeper.

Deter...in your paper will you cover an analysis of the alternatives to Deterrence? To me Deter implies a kind of symmetry: they threaten us, we threaten them, but with a bigger stick. They are deterred. Is that a workable, sustainable, achievable strategy for a State to employ against a Non-State Actor? Deterrence would assume (I guess) some identifiable asset (could be non-corporeal, e.g. their ideology) that we can threaten with destruction/harm. What would this be?

I think that in an analysis, Deterrence becomes an attrition-based strategy – in which we have to repeatedly demonstrate our capability to deter – by destroying things/people – because each NSA would either not care to be deterred, or who believe itself to be immune to our deterrent capabilities (either rightly or wrongly).

Your thoughts on this would be interesting and most welcome.

[Bob's World]

Bob,

Firstly, thanks for the chum quote - that's a keeper.

Deter...in your paper will you cover an analysis of the alternatives to Deterrence? To me Deter implies a kind of symmetry: they threaten us, we threaten them, but with a bigger stick. They are deterred. Is that a workable, sustainable, achievable strategy for a State to employ against a Non-State Actor? Deterrence would assume (I guess) some identifiable asset (could be non-corporeal, e.g. their ideology) that we can threaten with destruction/harm. What would this be?

I think that in an analysis, Deterrence becomes an attrition-based strategy – in which we have to repeatedly demonstrate our capability to deter – by destroying things/people – because each NSA would either not care to be deterred, or who believe itself to be immune to our deterrent capabilities (either rightly or wrongly).

Your thoughts on this would be interesting and most welcome.

Deterrence between states is largely a Cost/Benefit problem, that is summed up in "Credible Response." If you have both the capability and the credibility to make the cost of an action higher than the benefit, you will most often "deter."

But what of these new empowered actors that are not encumbered by states, and that take advantage of new forms of sanctuary from state power? The Hezbollah that is what I call a "quasi-state actor," who affiliates and participates in a state, but who also remains outside the state context to act independently; or a non-state actor like AQ with no such affiliations? Clearly what works on a state will not work on a non or quasi-state actor in the same way.

Like dealing with Home owners, Home renters, and Home guests, Squatters, and homeless. Clearly one program designed to create desired behavior in home owners is hardly likely to be effective with those in the other categories. Similarly, an effort to wipe out squatters that destroys property belonging to owners and that provokes other squatters and homeless people to unite to do harm back to the state is a bad program. The idea is to balance engagement across a span of actors by recognizing broad, but distinct categories and tailoring a balance of "prevent" and "encourage" engagement across the spectrum to achieve the desired effect.

One may have began with a COA of "Defeat squatters," but after say 7 years of focused energy on that one category finally woke up and realized that while there were less squatters, that things were actually worse in varying degrees in every other category. Balance. Some things are best engaged directly, others indirectly. Perhaps a program that enables owners to develop low-cost housing is more effective in preventing homelessness than rounding up homeless people and busing them to the next town; as an example.

Or, as I described it on my Facebook page:

"If the entire Muslim populace of the Middle East is an Elephant, and Al Qaeda is its balls; we are kicking holy hell out of the balls with little regard how "defeating" this one part might be "provoking" the rest."