Economics and Irregular Warfare

[Cavguy]

Many times, we just don't know how our actions effect the community. By flooding cash to certain leaders, our armed social work may disrupt the natural order of things that only stokes underlying tensions.

Exactly! And furthermore, we are unlikely to understand the 2d and 3d order impacts, no matter how culturally aware we try and make ourselves.

A commander must use discretion and discernment with all of his weapon systems.

True. Including the money.

Their grievance was not about what they did not have. It was envy over what others had. In cases like that, there's not much we can do.

It seems we have both come to the same conclusions. Your development money profoundly affects the prestige and pecking order of societies. This is fine, as long as you understand you are doing so. I had heated arguments with a former co-worker over this - he insisted on "balanced development" across an AO, while I argued that development (CERP-level) should be employed as a reward/incentive for cooperation.

In the clearance and hold phase, money can be used effectively to achieve security and stabilization, but this short term effect does not equal long term development and prosperity. I'm not convinced that this type of work can be accomplished by those in uniform.

Agreed. The military cannot effectively perform this kind of work. Our goals are too short term and transitory. That's why I don't think CERP should be used with long term development in mind. As you indicated, its a weapon system to be employed as a useful part of a broader combined arms/full spectrum approach to COIN.

To address one of the original points though, I found paying 20 individuals $50 to fix their own small problems bought more goodwill/info/cooperation than spending $5000 on a contractor to do a larger project. We also liberally used the small and micro rewards programs to a variety of purposes. This worked great in Tal Afar, oddly, MNF-W banned it at unit level in Anbar. It was a useful way for commanders to hand out up to $100 at a time to those that helped us in some way.

[MikeF]

It seems we have both come to the same conclusions. Your development money profoundly affects the prestige and pecking order of societies. This is fine, as long as you understand you are doing so. I had heated arguments with a former co-worker over this - he insisted on "balanced development" across an AO, while I argued that development (CERP-level) should be employed as a reward/incentive for cooperation.

Agreed. The military cannot effectively perform this kind of work. Our goals are too short term and transitory. That's why I don't think CERP should be used with long term development in mind. As you indicated, its a weapon system to be employed as a useful part of a broader combined arms/full spectrum approach to COIN.

Mohommad Yunnis already solved this problem. We just asked the wrong questions. I don't want to say to much on this thread b/c it's part of my answer to the SWJ writing contest.

To address one of the original points though, I found paying 20 individuals $50 to fix their own small problems bought more goodwill/info/cooperation than spending $5000 on a contractor to do a larger project. We also liberally used the small and micro rewards programs to a variety of purposes. This worked great in Tal Afar, oddly, MNF-W banned it at unit level in Anbar. It was a useful way for commanders to hand out up to $100 at a time to those that helped us in some way.

Again, I agree. TBP from me I guess. I would suggest that everyone go back and read Niel's comments on this subject. I concur with his words.

[Surferbeetle]

LOO's, Lines of Action, and product lines. What are the similarities, if any, and what does this say about what can be simultaneously managed?

From The Economist: Nestlé

Investors are also worried that Nestlé has become too large and unwieldy. The firm has 30 product lines that each generate more than SFr1 billion in annual sales, from Nescafé coffee and Nesquik milk to Purina pet food and Pure Life, a bottled water that is sometimes made from stuff that comes out of taps, rather than out of the ground. Consumers have been trading down to cheaper, unbranded foods in recent years, a trend that accelerated in the recession, potentially undermining the value of owning big brands.

Richard Laube, the head of Nestlé’s nutrition business and a former pharmaceuticals executive, describes a “pipeline” of some 75 research projects. Borrowing terminology from the drugs industry seems appropriate, given the time required to develop these new products. Unlike the quick development cycles usually seen in fast-moving consumer goods, which typically take one to two years, products in Nestlé’s nutrition pipeline may take four to six years to develop.

Finally, there is a risk that Nestlé’s new strategy could damage the firm’s blockbuster brands, which have taken decades to establish. This could happen in several ways. If some of the firm’s functional foods fail to pass muster with the regulators or, worse, turn out to cause harm rather than do good, then consumers could turn against all its products, even those that make no health claims at all. That could hurt, because most of its revenues will still come from selling treats like chocolate, ice-cream, coffee and flavoured milk.

Marketing

The term marketing concept holds that achieving organisational goals depends on knowing the needs and wants of target markets and delivering the desired satisfactions.[2] It proposes that in order to satisfy its organizational objectives, an organization should anticipate the needs and wants of consumers and satisfy these more effectively than competitors.[2]