Applied Smart Power by a SEAL

[Stan]

"Smart power" ...

Rob, Welcome Aboard !

I intentionally will refrain from using Smart and State in the same paragraph

I however really enjoyed the Finnish Institute's use of the term Soft Power regarding Russia's resurgence:

money, media, alliance with the Orthodox church, and even energy

Wonder what SecState thinks of that order of precedence ?

Regards, Stan

[M-A Lagrange]

Hello, welcome,

So now that we have define smart power or agree that everyody disagree on smart power, can we define "stupid power". May be we will have an agreement on what is not smart and what is power.

[jmm99]

is this ?

Where my work modifies this existing controversy even further is in the assertion that it is possible to reach individuals and groups of individuals at a much lower level and leverage large enough portions of influenced populations to upwardly or outwardly influence local systems like government or terrorism.

This sounds like Saul Alinsky, who has some students here as to his methodology. In any event, you are clearly not talking about state to state diplomacy and application of "soft power", etc., at that level. Are you basically starting at the tactical level of the "Political Struggle"[*] ?

-----------------------
[*] Basically looking at war (organized violence) as being composed of two reciprocal factors: the Military Struggle and the Political Stuggle. As the intensity of the Military Struggle increases, there is less room for the Political Struggle. Conversely as the Military Struggle winds down, the Political Struggle can intensify ("clear, hold and build" would be one example, imperfect as the "build" part might be in any given case).

An open question in my mind is whether intensification of the Political Struggle can de-intensify the Military Struggle. Advocates of Peace Enforcement (Chap 7 of the UN Charter) and "Robust Peacekeeping" (Chap 6-3/4 of the UN Charter) seem to think so.

As I am using the term "Political Struggle", it is a very broad term covering all of the non-military means used in an armed conflict. It has nothing to do with war as a continuation of politics or policy (Politik, as used by CvC) by use of other means, except that both the Military Struggle and the Political Struggle have to have the same end state as determined by Politik.

There is a natural tendency to first go to the Military Struggle (after all, folks are shooting at you or trying to blow you up) - as to which SWC has many experts (not JMM). Since I fit into the "soft side" of the reciprocal equation (the Political Struggle), I tend to look at that more than the other.