Applied Smart Power by a SEAL

[J. Robert DuBois]

But why should "the opinion attacks begin" ?

Believe me, I'd be plenty happy not to face heavy fire with my very first posting, but I've encountered resistance to Smart Power as being too "touchy-feely". Folks sometimes assume it's an expression of weak passivity, rather than a disciplined focus on balancing hard and soft influence.

Interestingly, most detractors tend to come from outside the SOF world, while my SEAL colleagues and their Army counterparts generally "get it". Similarly, this Small Wars assembly may also be more receptive to the concepts.

[jmm99]

I didn't get into your blogs for content. Since the post contained nothing exceptionable, I didn't see the controversy. So, in a few bullet points, what is "Smart Power" ?

[J. Robert DuBois]

I didn't get into your blogs for content. Since the post contained nothing exceptionable, I didn't see the controversy. So, in a few bullet points, what is "Smart Power" ?

"Smart power" is a term used in a 2004 Foreign Affairs article by Suzanne Nossel.

She was defining in one phrase a necessary blending of two concepts originally contrasted by Prof. Joseph Nye in the early 1990's. Hillary Clinton (and please note that I'm deliberately apolitical with these references) used the words "smart power" ten times during her confirmation as Sec State. Here is her definition:

"We must use what has been called smart power – the full range of tools at our disposal - diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural - picking the right tool, or combination of tools, for each situation. With smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of foreign policy."

Nye first coined the term "soft power" in order to describe a tool he believed the US government had traditionally under-utilized: capitalizing on our natural resource of attraction for other cultures, e.g., Japanese fascination with Elvis, bobby socks and baseball.

He explained that we as an institution tend to lean too habitually on "hard power", or the power of coercion. This doesn't mean only a threat of military force, but also other methods of influencing by force such as economic rewarding/withholding or direct manipulation of foreign domestic affairs (look at the long-term results of our early efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan).

So - smart power was defined in the early 2000's as an effective blending of hard power with the soft power defined in the early 1990's.

Among international experts, as you know, there are huge differences of opinion as to how much the super-powered US government should accommodate the desires or demands of less powerful nations.

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.

To sum up, I emphasize that because conflict is often based in large part on misunderstanding and ignorance, and that because innocents are harmed in such flare-ups of "unnecessary violence", there is a direct burden of peacemaking on those of us who can recognize both the vicious cycle and effective injection points at a much lower and more practical level than traditional statecraft.

It comes down to people first, and genuine humility on our part to ever accomplish real progress. The Brigadier who served as Iraqi liaison officer to MNC-I told me, "We need to be trusted. My men cannot trust the Americans when they can't feel any trust in the first place."

[William F. Owen]

"
He explained that we as an institution tend to lean too habitually on "hard power", or the power of coercion. This doesn't mean only a threat of military force, but also other methods of influencing by force such as economic rewarding/withholding or direct manipulation of foreign domestic affairs (look at the long-term results of our early efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan).

When did normal everyday diplomacy become "smart power"? The instruments of state craft are Diplomacy and Strategy, are they not?

I think we need a bit more 15th-16th Century Venice and Milan, and lot less new words and terms to describe things we have done for 1,000's of years.

[Tom Odom]

When did normal everyday diplomacy become "smart power"? The instruments of state craft are Diplomacy and Strategy, are they not?

I think we need a bit more 15th-16th Century Venice and Milan, and lot less new words and terms to describe things we have done for 1,000's of years.

That would be opinion attack number one

No speako Italiano, Venico, et Milano
Danny Devito Redux

[Bill Moore]

First off welcome to the council, now put up your dukes

I occassionally agree with Wilf against my better judgment and this is one of those times. Smart power is a concept that basically states we should do things smartly instead of being stupid. I agree, but I hope that isn't new.

As for employing all the elements of national power, when haven't we? I can't think of any conflict where we only employed one so called tool?

I thought our tax dollars paid SEALs to lift big weights, swim long distances, and blow things up, now you're confusing me with this smart power stuff....

[William F. Owen]

That would be opinion attack number one

Good point Tom. I am forgetting my manners....

SEAL Chap. Welcome to the council. When did normal everyday diplomacy become "smart power"?

[J. Robert DuBois]

Good point Tom. I am forgetting my manners....

SEAL Chap. Welcome to the council. When did normal everyday diplomacy become "smart power"?

This is great! An outpouring of love and affection to really make me feel at home. Please forgive my delayed re-entry - I'm en route Afghanistan and access is limited.

As I mentioned at the start, what I'm talking about will raise some hackles about touchy-feely or wishful idealism. Unfortunately, we'll also always have an element of miscommunication in play, and I have to constantly check my message first to reduce the amount I inadvertently create.

Several of you are indisputably spot on, stating that effectively balancing diplomacy and force (or "soft" and "hard") are ancient pillars of international influence and don't benefit from a new catchphrase. I want to publicly announce that I'm not educated or qualified to discuss that level beyond casual speculation.

Where I confused the matter is in emphasizing that international aspect, compared to my actual focus on the inter-personal. I'm borrowing from Nye, Nossel and Clinton because their macro expression structurally reflects my micro view.

JMM, you really got closest to what I should have said, with your reference to Saul Alinsky (my first hearing of him - I'll look him up), and where my point gets still more specific than his "political struggle" is that I'm looking down at a still lower level.

Picture the soccer balls and medicines distributed to little smiling Iraqi kids, with their smiling parents looking on. Picture in contrast a personal security detachment roaring through Baghdad, terrifying those same kids and tearing the rearview mirrors off their parents' cars. Each scenario creates a powerful impression among observers. We need to more persistently measure our message, conscious and otherwise, and work to make un-ugly Americanism a natural state.

Do we have to move aggressively in threat situations? Absolutely. Do we (Sgt Smith, or Cpt Jones) frequently overdo this aggression to a lesser or greater degree for a variety of personal or unit reasons? I say yes. This is the crux.

I've spent more years away from my wife and children than I've lived with them. I've sat in the sand and the mud of a dozen nations, sharing meals from a communal pot, and enjoyed the five-star accommodations of a dozen more. I watched the Islamic fundamentalist attacks of 9/11 live over satellite television, while living overseas with Islamic special forces on an extended training mission.

This personal contact with regular people across the globe makes it painfully clear that government-to-government relations are sometimes in perfect disharmony with the actual will of those citizens. I'm not trying to manipulate the will of states and heads of states, here...merely pointing out that like any great leader, if we recognize unique human talents and interests, we can co-opt the willing energy of human resources worldwide. We can leverage these individually to reduce conflict and better protect those in need.

I know this discussion will stretch on, and I am very grateful to all of you who have chimed in with support or, especially, challenge. My primary tool will have to be anecdotal evidence, because our sharing about a little boy with a melted face in Uzbekistan, or an older, retarded child sprawled pathetically in a baby carriage by his begging grandmother, can tear through an academic exercise and focus the heart of each good man or woman on a solvable problem.

For me, it's exactly about those innocent children on every continent, their needless suffering at the apathetic whim of state-to-state maneuvering, and their mind-blowing potential if offered appropriate opportunity. If only one of them is released to share his God-given talents with the world because of my efforts...my life will make a lot of sense.

One more thing - should I move to a new string and stop clogging up this H&F bin? I'm not familiar with the protocols.

[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.