Deterrence of Irregular Threats

[Ken White]

but IIRC, there was a media kerfuffle at the time over the intransigence of folks high in the chain not being willing to deal with the Shieks from early 2004. I have this vague recollection it was in the Economist (whose subscription I had not canceled at that time; since have done so) and in some of the papers I read most every day on the internet. I also vaguely recollect there might have been good reasons to not do so at that time due to both Iraqi and US domestic politics...

Deal cutters are indeed everywhere but my observation in the ME was that they're quite expert at it -- we westerners don't even know how to begin...

Interesting article; Thanks...

[Surferbeetle]

From the Weekly Standard by Eric Hamilton Iraq Report VIII
The Fight for Mosul.

Executive Summary here

In 2007, Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) was steadily pushed into northern Iraq. By the spring of 2008, the network attempted to regroup in certain areas, particularly around the city of Mosul. Mosul has long been an important hub for the Sunni insurgency and Coalition commanders have identifi ed it as a strategic center of gravity for AQI. Though AQI cells remain in central Iraq, the principal fight against the network is now taking place in Mosul, western Ninawa province, and further south in the Za'ab triangle. As the fi ght against AQI proceeds and the Government of Iraq attempts to establish security and governance in northern Iraq, it is important to understand the context in which this struggle will take place. Iraq Report #8 focuses on the fight for Mosul beginning with the context and history of the city and then detailing efforts to establish security in Mosul and Ninawa from the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003 through the shaping operations that preceded Operations' Lions' Roar and Mother of Two Springs in May 2008.

Full pdf report here

[Dayuhan]

You realize of course that the Soviet invasion of Afg was during the Cold War, and was just the type of threat that the West was helping defend the Middle East from. Thus the tolerance for our presence. Then the Gulf War. Bin Laden offered to lead a similar effort to deal with Saddam, and was rejected and instead US forces brought into the Kingdom. This was a major decision for the King. He knew it violated everything his populace believed, but also knew that he had no other viable choice to preserve his kingdom. This was post Cold War. The tide had turned. We were no longer keeping the Soviets out, we were now for all effects the mercs of the King guarding his status as King and fighting other Muslims.

I'm not convinced that the cold war/post war distinction is as relevant to the Saudi youth who are being recruited as it is to us. The pitch is still "expel the infidel from the lands of the Muslims", and the drivers are still testosterone and fundamentalist religion.

I'd also be hesitant to generalize about the beliefs of the Saudi populace - there as everywhere you will find a spectrum of belief. I am not convinced that anything like a majority of the Saudi populace would have preferred that the King rely on bin Laden for protection against Saddam. I do think there was a general sense that the US presence was unwanted but needed. The Saudis are not entirely devoid of pragmatism.

I do think we stayed far too long, though this is clearer in retrospect, and that the combination of an extended American presence and an extremely difficult economic period provided a powerful lever for militants.

Not all are fighters, only a few. But most essentially agree with the message and respect Bin Laden for daring to stand up. In between there is a wide range of positions and degrees of participation.

I am not at all convinced that most Saudis agree with the message, or want bin Laden-style governance. Many who are quite willing to support bin Laden's efforts abroad are not at all interested in being governed by Al Qaeda, nor do they want to see Saudi Arabia at war with the west.

Again, I'm not sure you're factoring in the immense difference between Saudi Arabia in the late 90s and Saudi Arabia today. A cynic would say that the royals are simply trying to buy loyalty - that assessment would be largely accurate, but the effort has largely been effective. There has been a whole hell of a lot of hard cash flowing around the Kingdom in the last 4-5 years, and prosperity does take the edge off resentment. I was in the region during the last Bush visit, when we basically begged the Saudis to increase production to offset spiraling oil prices. The Saudis told Bush that supply was adequate, the problem was speculation, and declined to comply. Wasn't widely remembered in the US, but around the Gulf it was a major thing.

Americans may find a government headed by a King, Emir, Sultan, or Sheik to be inherently illegitimate, but that's the way that part of the world works... and I have no reason to believe that at this point the populaces involved really want to change those systems.

Oh, and a mediator has no position, he just facilitates a dialog between parties that have too many issues to be able to negotiate. Its a suitable role for the US to take.

There are a few problems with that.

A mediator can only be effective if that mediator is invited to mediate, and is accepted, by all parties to the dispute. We cannot simply impose ourselves as an uninvited mediator in another county's internal affairs.

We may claim that we have no position, but we certainly have interests, and we will be invariably perceived by all parties as attempting to advance those interests. Why would we assume that our mediation would be acceptable to the parties involved?

More to the point, who ARE the parties involved, and what is the dispute? We may say we want to mediate between the populace and the government, but who speaks for the populace? Not us. Not Osama either, and even if he did, he'd hardly be inclined to accept our mediation. The idea of imposing ourselves as an uninvited mediator in an internal situation where we have no clear idea what the dispute is or who the disputing parties are seems a recipe for disaster to me.

[MikeF]

MileF, Glenn Beck is a FOX TV conspiracy theorist commentator who recently lost about 46 of his sponsors for some of the outrageous stuff he is saying. Google Glenn Beck or Lunatic Fringe either one will get you details.

Sadly I know who he is...He (and others) continue to confuse my family and friends with fear mongering back in north kakalaki...I just ignore all the pundits ...

When hurricane season rolls in, my brothers head towards the storm to catch the most gruesome of waves(as they tell me). I had to learn in the calm wake of Orange County, CA to understand why. The solitude of the wave beckons every man in some shape or form.

I think in simple terms- what is my mission? what am I supposed to accomplish? In other words, I just wanna go out and ride a wave. It doesn't have to be a big one where I'll be videotaped and published. I just want to enjoy the experience knowing that I was a part of something bigger than myself.

As we broach the 8th anniversary of 9/11, our nation faces the same conflict. The COIN boys attempt to tell us to just body-surf regardless of the size of the wave. The threat-based guys tell us to just para-sail. The fear-mongerers tell us to isolate and live in fear. No one has told us how to ride the wave.

I've got my long board. I'm ready to paddle. BW is given lessons. I'm listening.

v/r

Mike

[Surferbeetle]

This guy must have a hard time walking. From wikipedia:

Mike Stewart (b. 1963) is a nine-time World Champion bodyboarder, one of the early pioneers of the bodyboarding sport, a pioneer of big-wave tow-in surfing and also a champion bodysurfer.

Here is a shot of him at the office...

[Bob's World]

Ok, we've drilled on another distinct aspect of the problem, and it is probably time to go back to the original premise of this thread:

To simply pursue "defeat" of certain named threats, while potentially possible on those threats, has negative effects across the spectrum of actors and may well be producing a net strategic loss in the pursuit of tactical gains. So, how do we look much more holistically across the spectrum of actors and interests, and design more balanced approaches of engagement, both to "Encourage" favorable behavior and "Discourage" destructive behavior?

A little less threat focused capture/kill and ever expanding target lists (both organizations and states they operate from) balanced with a little more looking at the relationships of the West with these governments, working to continue to excise colonial baggage and encourage evolutionary reforms based on local values, not ours; etc. What I call "Full-Spectrum Deterrence."

Do we attempt to "deter" AQ directly?? No, it would be counter-productive. We hit them indirectly, we work smarter, not harder to use their momentum against them, to twist their words to our benefit, to replace them once again in the minds of the populaces of this region as the outside force that can help them achieve positive change.

We can refurbish our reputation here. For 150 years we didn't have colonial "rights" to mandate policy or take what we wanted; so we negotiated from positions as equals and paid cash. We were told our missionaries could not preach Christianity; so they built universities and hospitals instead. They suffered under the colonial boot; and we were the example of the little guy who grabbed the boot and threw the colonial master out. Our ideology still supports this type of engagement. The problem is that the idealist youth has grown up and become his father. But as a nation, we are old before our time, it is not too late to recapture the ideals of our youth and merge them with the wisdom of our experiences and move on.

[marct]

Hi Bob,

I'm inverting the order of your comments because I think it is necessary for reasons that will become apparent.

We can refurbish our reputation here. For 150 years we didn't have colonial "rights" to mandate policy or take what we wanted; so we negotiated from positions as equals and paid cash. We were told our missionaries could not preach Christianity; so they built universities and hospitals instead. They suffered under the colonial boot; and we were the example of the little guy who grabbed the boot and threw the colonial master out. Our ideology still supports this type of engagement. The problem is that the idealist youth has grown up and become his father. But as a nation, we are old before our time, it is not too late to recapture the ideals of our youth and merge them with the wisdom of our experiences and move on.

That is a very nice myth, but it has little to do with the historical record. The US successfully colonized large parts of North America, and certainly played the part of colonial master in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and other places. The main difference between your colonial history and that of, say, Britain, was that you used a French Metropolitan model, i.e. your colonial conquests became part of the "nation" per se.

Second point, on your missionaries, that was a British tactic that you picked up on, and was part of the indirect control system that the London Missionary Society developed during the 1860's. You also used your corporations as tools of colonial influence, especially from about 1890 - 1939 or so (another move copied from the Brits).

I'm not raising these points to be a sierra disturber, although that is a side benefit (), I'm raising them to point out the dangers of relying on the application of your own creation mythology to other groups, which is exactly what you are doing. First off, it isn't an "ideology" it is a "mythology" (and a creation myth to boot). Second, while your mythology may support this type of engagement, your historical actions don't in the perceptions of those who you are trying to apply them to (they have long and selective memories). Third, your politicians don't apply this mythology, which basically means that outsiders will look at any invocation of it as being produced by a bunch of fanatics who are brainwashed.

I'm using highly charged words for this final point for one simple reason: that is exactly the sort of rhetoric that your enemies will use. How will you counter it? All some group like the AQ propaganda wing has to do is talk about your national health care debate to point to current, ongoing examples of how this myth is a farce in reality.

To simply pursue "defeat" of certain named threats, while potentially possible on those threats, has negative effects across the spectrum of actors and may well be producing a net strategic loss in the pursuit of tactical gains. So, how do we look much more holistically across the spectrum of actors and interests, and design more balanced approaches of engagement, both to "Encourage" favorable behavior and "Discourage" destructive behavior?

Okay, having just given a whole slew of reasons why your invocation of a creation myth won't work, now let's look at how you could make it work (hey, I'm an academic - I like arguing both sides of a problem ).

1. Action and words must be in line with each other. Let me just take the example of state forms here. If "self determination" is a principle that you hold to, and it really is the core of your creation myth, then you have to support it by both words and deeds even if it disagrees with your own mythic solution - with the caveat that it is not opposed to your national interest in a negative, overt way. For an historic precedent, consider how Britain reacted to both sides in your civil war - the "national interest" at an economic level was all in favour of the South, while at an ideological level was more in line with the North. For a modern example, consider how the US is reacting to Karzai's attempts to negotiate with some of the Taliban.

2. Take the long view. The US population is conditioned to think in very short term time stretches. We see this in current operations and in a whole slew of other areas. When you are applying whole of government operations to change another society, however, you have to think in generational terms and remain constant in them. For example, you could tie aid / development funds directly to certain indicators of progress along lines you wish to see and/or focus in on specific geographic areas (Canada is now doing both of these).

3. Figure out exactly what behaviour patterns your ideology / mythology reflects rather than the external forms. A classic example of this is the imposition of republican forms of government on populaces that do not have the traditions to support them. The actual behaviour pattern that you should be supporting is political discussion that a) doesn't go kinetic, b) doesn't destabilize a society and c) will eventually lead to greater individual freedoms. Sometimes, this can be met with a republican form of government; other times a monarchy would be better and still other times a tyranny in the old Greek sense of the term. You can't let the form blind you to the function which should be your goal.

4. Look for allies not proxies. The difference, at least as I'm using it here, is that allies will point out problems that you have with your assumptions, while proxies will be too afraid that they will loose your support to speak up. You don't have to act on what your allies tell you, but you have to listen and be willing to act if the commentary is persuasive.

I think I'm going to stop here .

Cheers,

Marc

[Bob's World]

Hi Bob,

I'm inverting the order of your comments because I think it is necessary for reasons that will become apparent.



That is a very nice myth, but it has little to do with the historical record. The US successfully colonized large parts of North America, and certainly played the part of colonial master in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and other places. The main difference between your colonial history and that of, say, Britain, was that you used a French Metropolitan model, i.e. your colonial conquests became part of the "nation" per se.

Second point, on your missionaries, that was a British tactic that you picked up on, and was part of the indirect control system that the London Missionary Society developed during the 1860's. You also used your corporations as tools of colonial influence, especially from about 1890 - 1939 or so (another move copied from the Brits).

I'm not raising these points to be a sierra disturber, although that is a side benefit (), I'm raising them to point out the dangers of relying on the application of your own creation mythology to other groups, which is exactly what you are doing. First off, it isn't an "ideology" it is a "mythology" (and a creation myth to boot). Second, while your mythology may support this type of engagement, your historical actions don't in the perceptions of those who you are trying to apply them to (they have long and selective memories). Third, your politicians don't apply this mythology, which basically means that outsiders will look at any invocation of it as being produced by a bunch of fanatics who are brainwashed.

I'm using highly charged words for this final point for one simple reason: that is exactly the sort of rhetoric that your enemies will use. How will you counter it? All some group like the AQ propaganda wing has to do is talk about your national health care debate to point to current, ongoing examples of how this myth is a farce in reality.



Okay, having just given a whole slew of reasons why your invocation of a creation myth won't work, now let's look at how you could make it work (hey, I'm an academic - I like arguing both sides of a problem ).

1. Action and words must be in line with each other. Let me just take the example of state forms here. If "self determination" is a principle that you hold to, and it really is the core of your creation myth, then you have to support it by both words and deeds even if it disagrees with your own mythic solution - with the caveat that it is not opposed to your national interest in a negative, overt way. For an historic precedent, consider how Britain reacted to both sides in your civil war - the "national interest" at an economic level was all in favour of the South, while at an ideological level was more in line with the North. For a modern example, consider how the US is reacting to Karzai's attempts to negotiate with some of the Taliban.

2. Take the long view. The US population is conditioned to think in very short term time stretches. We see this in current operations and in a whole slew of other areas. When you are applying whole of government operations to change another society, however, you have to think in generational terms and remain constant in them. For example, you could tie aid / development funds directly to certain indicators of progress along lines you wish to see and/or focus in on specific geographic areas (Canada is now doing both of these).

3. Figure out exactly what behaviour patterns your ideology / mythology reflects rather than the external forms. A classic example of this is the imposition of republican forms of government on populaces that do not have the traditions to support them. The actual behaviour pattern that you should be supporting is political discussion that a) doesn't go kinetic, b) doesn't destabilize a society and c) will eventually lead to greater individual freedoms. Sometimes, this can be met with a republican form of government; other times a monarchy would be better and still other times a tyranny in the old Greek sense of the term. You can't let the form blind you to the function which should be your goal.

4. Look for allies not proxies. The difference, at least as I'm using it here, is that allies will point out problems that you have with your assumptions, while proxies will be too afraid that they will loose your support to speak up. You don't have to act on what your allies tell you, but you have to listen and be willing to act if the commentary is persuasive.

I think I'm going to stop here .

Cheers,

Marc

There is no question that as we bulled our way across the continent, and then finding an ocean in front of us, looked for crumbs not already swallowed by the Euro big boys, or toys we could steal from a doddering Spain. But I hold to our approach to the Middle East, after all, this was territory already firmly under colonial control. We walked easy not to avoid conflict with locals, but rather with their colonial 'masters.'

We don't have clean hands, but America is far more than a Myth, there is much truth to our legend, and to be honest in confuses others and leads us to confused engagement as well. The big, strong, clumsy, well intentioned teen, who sometimes acts contrary to his beliefs, feels bad about it later, etc...

But you are spot on about the criticality of getting our Narrative right, so that one can draw a lean, straight line from our ideological roots to our actions on the ground, and all of our policies, strategies, organizations and plans in between. Hypocrisy never sells well.

[marct]

Hi Bob,

There is no question that as we bulled our way across the continent, and then finding an ocean in front of us, looked for crumbs not already swallowed by the Euro big boys, or toys we could steal from a doddering Spain. But I hold to our approach to the Middle East, after all, this was territory already firmly under colonial control. We walked easy not to avoid conflict with locals, but rather with their colonial 'masters.'

Yup. The ME has always been a nightmare in terms of empires . I'm not sure I'd agree with you on how firmly it was under control by any Europeans (pretty badly in most cases), but I would agree that on the whole that was how you folks operated there up until, say the 1960's or so.

We don't have clean hands, but America is far more than a Myth, there is much truth to our legend, and to be honest in confuses others and leads us to confused engagement as well. The big, strong, clumsy, well intentioned teen, who sometimes acts contrary to his beliefs, feels bad about it later, etc...

On the latter point, I agree totally. Honestly, sometimes I just want to bang my head against a wall over it . BTW, I was using Myth and "Creation Myth" in a fairly technical sense. I don't know if you read my In illo Tempore post or not, but a creation myth is a root example of that. Myths are extremely powerful, regardless of any truth content in them (although they usually do have a fair bit), simply because they pattern emotions and perceptions. "Legends" tend to have more historicity than "myths", and to be more focused on action sequences and consequences.

But you are spot on about the criticality of getting our Narrative right, so that one can draw a lean, straight line from our ideological roots to our actions on the ground, and all of our policies, strategies, organizations and plans in between. Hypocrisy never sells well.

Exactly. Narrative must (roughly) equal actions. Honestly, that's a large part of the basis of "trust"; can "I" trust "you" to act as you say you will and in line with what you say you believe? Operates at both personal and international levels.

On drawing that straight line, often there isn't one, which was why I tossed out the Britain in the US Civil war example. What the Brits did "right", at least in my opinion, was that they openly stated their entire debate (you can see it in Hanserd and in the newspapers). The debate reinforced Britain's international image in a lot of ways even though they didn't take any real, overt action. Worth looking at, especially since they had both the power to intervene decisively either way as well as a lot of popular debate over intervention.

[slapout9]

I think in simple terms- what is my mission? what am I supposed to accomplish? In other words, I just wanna go out and ride a wave. It doesn't have to be a big one where I'll be videotaped and published. I just want to enjoy the experience knowing that I was a part of something bigger than myself.

As we broach the 8th anniversary of 9/11, our nation faces the same conflict. The COIN boys attempt to tell us to just body-surf regardless of the size of the wave. The threat-based guys tell us to just para-sail. The fear-mongerers tell us to isolate and live in fear. No one has told us how to ride the wave.

I've got my long board. I'm ready to paddle. BW is given lessons. I'm listening.

v/r

Mike

Mike, get ready to Hang Ten (at one time my whole wadrobe was Hang Ten shirts and Levis) because human created problems have a human solution and we are approaching a solution

[slapout9]

We can refurbish our reputation here. For 150 years we didn't have colonial "rights" to mandate policy or take what we wanted; so we negotiated from positions as equals and paid cash. We were told our missionaries could not preach Christianity; so they built universities and hospitals instead. They suffered under the colonial boot; and we were the example of the little guy who grabbed the boot and threw the colonial master out. Our ideology still supports this type of engagement. The problem is that the idealist youth has grown up and become his father. But as a nation, we are old before our time, it is not too late to recapture the ideals of our youth and merge them with the wisdom of our experiences and move on.

Bob, I agree that we should do this but there are very rich and powerful "vested interest" who will not see this as a advantage but as a direct threat to their power and profits....how do you deal with that?

[MikeF]

Mike, get ready to Hang Ten (at one time my whole wadrobe was Hang Ten shirts and Levis) because human created problems have a human solution and we are approaching a solution

True. I imagine in the next year or so that someone here will bust out with the truth to keep us afloat for the next 30-40 years. I'm comfortable understanding that it won't be pop-centric COIN. I'm just happy to be a small part of it.

Today is Reggae Day in Monterey. I'll probably come back tonight with insights from Three Little Birds. I've got to work on the surfing analogy. The COIN as body-surfers sticks, but there has to be something better for the threat-based crowd than para-sailing.

v/r

Mike

[Ken White]

we were now for all effects the mercs of the King guarding his status as King and fighting other Muslims.

Some truth -- but quite far from all of it in the minds of those in the ME or in Saudi Arabia, who, contrary to what you seem to think, are more worried about the evils of US culture and economic (not military) clout than they are about the evils of their monarchy. I think you really need to consider that some things are not quite as simple as you often try to paint them.

Oh, and a mediator has no position, he just facilitates a dialog between parties that have too many issues to be able to negotiate. Its a suitable role for the US to take.

That's a very dangerous belief -- our current position on many things and our history around the world make us ill suited to be a moderator for anything or anyone; those days died with Teddy Roosevelt. Were we to act as a moderator in most disputes, any decision we rendered no matter how fair would be tainted simply because it was rendered by us. We cannot -- or should not -- do "peacekeeping' because all we'll do is provide targets.

Similarly, we cannot and should not attempt to be mediators or even power brokers because we're highly, logically and quite properly suspect throughout the world. That attitude, BTW long predates the Cold War and WW II, a fact that you also seem to elide. Paradoxically, all those wars did was cement the fact that Americans are unconcerned with others because while we did indeed fight to free the oppressed we also very carefully insured our own economic well being and assured our eventual and current position in the world by working assiduously to do that and by influencing Allied strategy to enhance our position. To paraphrase, Americans often forget that; non-Americans never do.

The good things we have done that you cite are true but we offset many of those with sharp practices and bullying behavior. Americans have long been touted as canny (read: greedy) traders who drove hard bargain and for pursuing our own interests at the expense of others; we are aggressive, always have been and we make others nervous because of the potential for damage. Unintended damage, often -- but it's still damage...

Recently, George W. Bush and Co. took advantage of that world fear to perform (badly) some actions that were long overdue. While they were necessary, the poor performance (most not the fault of Politicians, BTW...) adversely affected the potential impact. Those actions were a recent reminder that Americans are many in a very large land, overly wealthy, brash, aggressive and unpredictable. While I'm personally very comfortable with that, those who wish to change that perception in the minds of the world should realize it will take a great deal of work to turn that attitude internally, on our part, as well as in the minds of others. More importantly, it will take a great deal of time.

From a later post by you:

We can refurbish our reputation here...it is not too late to recapture the ideals of our youth and merge them with the wisdom of our experiences and move on.

That one isn't a necessarily fallacy -- but it is semi dangerous. First you have to turn around the large Elephant that is the US government. Not SOCOM, not the Armed forces; the entire government to include the Congress and -- this is important -- the attitudes of a great many Americans. Then you have to give the rest of the world time to accept that those changes are real, sincere and will last. All while holding at bay those who just want to see the big guy humbled, not necessarily dead and gone -- though some want that -- just humbled. I sincerely wish you success but hope you'll forgive me if I'm somewhat skeptical of your chances of attaining much... MarcT commented on that aspect in far more detail and far better than I can; I'm just agreeing with his conclusions and recommendations -- and spreading some I think needed skepticism and cautions. As you said

Hypocrisy never sells well.

Yes, true statement and you'll have to convince people here and in the broader world that is not what's being sold. I'm not at all sure you can un-do history...

[slapout9]

True. I imagine in the next year or so that someone here will bust out with the truth to keep us afloat for the next 30-40 years. I'm comfortable understanding that it won't be pop-centric COIN. I'm just happy to be a small part of it.

Today is Reggae Day in Monterey. I'll probably come back tonight with insights from Three Little Birds. I've got to work on the surfing analogy. The COIN as body-surfers sticks, but there has to be something better for the threat-based crowd than para-sailing.

v/r

Mike

Good news Mike...you are a part of something larger. Everyone comes from and will return to the System.....the problem is figuring out your purpose and your place in that System. Ah, Reggae has a lot of Political Wisdom. I am a Jimmy Cliff fan. And as the song points out a lot of people in this world are not going to wait until they get to Heaven to get their portion of the System Pie And for any System to survive it must adapt. As Bob's World has pointed out our own Country System from it's original purpose was meant to adapt, we have a process for doing that....but some folks don't like change and that is the problem. We can change our old way of thinking and adapt and prosper or go the other way and become a fossil. I don't remember who said it but it goes like this "Are we dying or being born?"

Jimmy Cliff "The Harder They Come"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGE4dnrPPZQ

[MikeF]

Oh, and a mediator has no position, he just facilitates a dialog between parties that have too many issues to be able to negotiate. Its a suitable role for the US to take.

I think that this topic is the crux of the issue. I'll use the example of marraige and divorce to highlight several points.

When a marraige begins to dissolve, couples attend counseling to try and repair the damage in perceptions or grievances. The mediator, a neutral third party trained in conflict resolution, attempts to help the couple "fix" the marraige.

If said marraige continues to spiral downward, a break point is reached where the parties determine that the union must be broken, and a divorce is imminent. If the two parties are non-violent, then an suitable agreement can be reached through a trained negoitiator.

If the situation is more hostile or even violent, arbitrators (lawyers and judges) are brought in to determine a fair solution. These arbitrators have the legal authority and responsibility to handle such matters as determined by state laws.

John Nash shows us how to arbitrate such messes, but his apprach only deals with utility (Money, houses, child-custody). The arbitrators do not deal with the emotional baggage of sense of loss, bitterness, betrayal, etc...

Extending this analogy to our foreign policy, I believe it shows some of the limitations in our current policy and the gaps between the theory and practice of COIN.

As we invest more and more soldiers into Iraq and Afghanistan, we try to force armed arbitration. There is a negative correlation between our time/footprint on the ground and our perceived neutrality.

IMO, this helps explain why we continue to see difficulties transitioning from Hold to Build in Iraq.

So, we can adjust from armed arbitrator to mediator. Fareed Zakaria suggests this approach in The Post-American World, but we must find a better way to do it. If we want to act as a mediator, we have to be perceived as a neutral third-party. In this day and age, that's a tough sell.

v/r

Mike

[Majormarginal]

Nike Hercules. Some were Regular Army and some were full time National Guard. Closed in the very early 70's.

[raptor10]

I'll apologize if this has been posted already, but a cursory glance at the thread revealed that this gem of an article Deterrence and Influence in Counterterrorism had not been posted yet, which directly addresses the issues that are being discussed here.

Executive summary - Deterrence may not be the right word - Influence might be the word we need to look at; how do we put pressure on Al Qaeda and it's supporters to not do the sorts attacks that are most catastrophic to us?

to quote:

Even if the terrorists are not generally deterrable, specific terrorist actions may be deterrable even today. We know empirically that terrorists feel constraints, that they argue and plot among themselves, review and adapt strategies, worry about their perceived constituencies, and sometimes back away from tactics that seem to have gone too far. Similarly, we know that terrorists— even zealots—pay attention to and dislike operational risks. Committed terrorists do not reform, but they do change actions, and that can be important.

[Bob's World]

"Credible Response: The threat of punishment or reward, the requisite capabilities and capacities to deliver, and the unqualified certainty to carry through as promised.


Credible Influence: A reputation earned through persistent and consistent engagement of a nature that promotes appropriate behavior in others without requiring either the threat or actual exertion of action.


Credible Response remains the cornerstone for deterring, disrupting, and defeating state-based threats. However, in the emergent era of empowered populaces and non-state actors it become increasingly clear that we must augment this core capability with Credible Influence as well. This demands that we build a force, and design and synchronize operations that lend to the overall U.S. national credibility rather than drawing upon that same sorely taxed account."


Ok, the Credible Response definition that I lay out above borrows heavily from John Collins' excellent thoughts on deterrence from the late 70's. As I look to how to augment these time honored concepts I do not believe that we need to make radical changes to how we train, organize and equip our units, but do need to make a major change in how we think about how to execute our operations.

So much of strategic thought today is about exerting force of arms to either maintain or re-set a status quo that finds increasing resistance every day, both from rising states and rising populaces as well. Central to my premise is that we can be far more successful by enabling change that we can live with and are a part of, over resisting change at every juncture and ending up on the outside looking in once the dust finally settles.

[slapout9]

"Credible Response:
Ok, the Credible Response definition that I lay out above borrows heavily from John Collins' excellent thoughts on deterrence from the late 70's. As I look to how to augment these time honored concepts I do not believe that we need to make radical changes to how we train, organize and equip our units, but do need to make a major change in how we think about how to execute our operations.

Bob, your definition is fine but I believe the source of many of our problems are our weapons and training and they need to be changed. We need more less/non lethal weapons and training that could be applied on a large scale if need be. We need a Taser option so to speak, so we could literally Paralyze a violent group which could include innocent people being held hostage.

[Bob's World]

Bob, your definition is fine but I believe the source of many of our problems are our weapons and training and they need to be changed. We need more less/non lethal weapons and training that could be applied on a large scale if need be. We need a Taser option so to speak, so we could literally Paralyze a violent group which could include innocent people being held hostage.

Slap, true enough, that changes in strategic approach will definitely shine a light on the requirement for new tools for our operators.

As to "Sources" of problems, I am much more willing to lay the source of problems at the feet of the policy/strategy types rather than at the feet of the solider out in the blood and dust just trying to accomplish what he is told to do and stay alive in the process.

Once we are able to turn the corner in how we look at the problems we face with fresh perspectives, we can then shape and implement fresh policy and strategy as well, which in turn drives what the force providers produce; and how the planners plan, and operators operate.