Motivation vs. causation

[Ken White]

You live in a simplistic world, Robert...

In the American Colonies versus Britain, you left out the bit about the costs of the French and Indian war from which the Colonies greatly benefited and for which they promised to help pay -- then reneged on raising taxes. Add to that a series of provocations by groups of people who were NOT in accord with mainstream Colonial thinking and half dozen or more other things (not least French activities before during and after...) and that conflict wasn't nearly as simple as you infer. You tend to cherry pick your history and ignore things that are inconvenient

Same is true of Viet Nam. That was far more complex than your statements imply -- as was the Chinese example. For example, you ignore the impact of the death of FDR on the acceptance of the French as de-facto rulers of Indo China and you ignore the fact that American support for the southern half was very low key until the Brothers Kennedy decided to use Viet Nam to stimulate the US economy. There were a a lot of wrongs in Viet Nam but not all were US or western wrongs. Not by a long shot.

Bob's World is nice and simple.

The real world is filled with a lot of gray and half tones -- most of which are ignored only at some peril. The good news is that you're smart enough to realize that with statements like this:

...Depending on one's perspective though it is often hard to see due to a variety of reasons...

...But, it is very comforting for politicians to be able to blame their shortcomings on others...

You acknowledge the existence of human fallibility but your prescriptions and descriptions usually fail to account for it.

That sort of ambiguates your message...

[Bob's World]

You live in a simplistic world, Robert...

In the American Colonies versus Britain, you left out the bit about the costs of the French and Indian war from which the Colonies greatly benefited and for which they promised to help pay -- then reneged on raising taxes. Add to that a series of provocations by groups of people who were NOT in accord with mainstream Colonial thinking and half dozen or more other things (not least French activities before during and after...) and that conflict wasn't nearly as simple as you infer. You tend to cherry pick your history and ignore things that are inconvenient

Same is true of Viet Nam. That was far more complex than your statements imply -- as was the Chinese example. For example, you ignore the impact of the death of FDR on the acceptance of the French as de-facto rulers of Indo China and you ignore the fact that American support for the southern half was very low key until the Brothers Kennedy decided to use Viet Nam to stimulate the US economy. There were a a lot of wrongs in Viet Nam but not all were US or western wrongs. Not by a long shot.

Bob's World is nice and simple.

The real world is filled with a lot of gray and half tones -- most of which are ignored only at some peril. The good news is that you're smart enough to realize that with statements like this:You acknowledge the existence of human fallibility but your prescriptions and descriptions usually fail to account for it.

That sort of ambiguates your message...

The universe, however, is indescribably complex.

So you're right, simple was my goal. None of the shades of grey or half-tones have been ignored, they have all been factored in or by-passed where they are true, but immaterial to understanding the essence of the problem.

No one said the American colonist's causation or motivation was rationale, just that they perceived it to be so. I think it is quite typical for the counterinsurgent to see the insurgents Causation as completely irrational. But that does not change the perception of the counterinsurgent. This is one reason that most counterinsurgencies go violent rather than being resolved at the subversion level, because the government is too focused on the facts and the law rather than the very powerful perceptions of injustice, disrespect or their very illegitimacy in the eyes of their populace. History shows that this is both common, and folly for the counterinsurgent.

My work has been focused on rendering the facts of dozens of insurgencies, studying the writings of dozens of theorists and historians, my own experiences throughout my life; to include 4 years focused on Asia, and now in Afghanistan to get to exactly what you accurately call "simple."

Genius is simple. That is my goal (and a difficult one as I am not exactly equipped for genius, so for me it is a hard, circuitous journey and not just a casual glance leading to that "Eureka!" moment.

In my opinion too many people spend too much time mucking around in the "facts" (and arguing about the 100's of different nuances of what those facts are), rather than looking past the fact to find the essence behind; to see how those facts interact in common patterns and trends.

That is why I put the Latin on my signature. To know the facts is education. To understand how the facts interact and what they mean and to be able to draw inferences from them is wisdom. Many men seek knowledge, but Solomon asked for wisdom.

Besides, "simple" is far more difficult to achieve than "complex."

Or, as I have told action officers who bring me insanely complex solutions to insanely complex problems: "Don't complify; simplicate."

So yeah, I'm trying to simplicate this hairball.

[jmm99]

I think these posts (along with this post and any that follow on the same topic):

this is classic "motivation"

Motivation vs Causation

Line up your insurgencies...

As Paul Harvey used to say, "The rest of the story..."

E= MC2 is simple

Slapout9 (untitled)

Funny....Money

should be moved to a new thread cuz they are beyond the scope of this thread's topic. Perhaps this post's heading (Motivation vs Causation; Theory and Practice) could title the new thread. But, that's up to the Powers That Move Things.

I believe it would be worthwhile cuz this discussion has been going on (in one form or the other) for better than a year - the Eagle Landed here in Nov 2008.

The American Revolution and Vietnam seem to me excellent contexts in which to frame the discussion: both were major events (a complex of conventional and unconventional warfare); a lot will be known to members here; and as past events, we don't have to worry about OpSec and other current considerations.

Without answering (yet) prior posts, I am coming at this from the following basic levels:

1. Practitioner, not theoretician.

2. Tactics, not strategy.

And, those at the lowest local level - just the "little" things.

Now, it so happens that I also subscribe to the theory that the practitioner must interface with the theoretician; and tactics have to interface with strategy. Those interfaces are where I am having a problem.

So, if a Power That Moves Things could oblige, I would like to continue this long-standing discourse elsewhere.

Best to all the discoursers

Mike

[marct]

I think these posts (along with this post and any that follow on the same topic):

should be moved to a new thread cuz they are beyond the scope of this thread's topic. Perhaps this post's heading (Motivation vs Causation; Theory and Practice) could title the new thread. But, that's up to the Powers That Move Things.

So let it be written, so let it be done

[jmm99]

That was nearly as quick as the retreat of the Languedoc Grenadiers from Johnson at Baron Dieskau's Defeat near Lake George in 1755. Ah, he who fights and runs away, gets to farm at Maskinongé.

Regards

Mike

[marct]

de nada, Mike !

[jmm99]

As to all these (realizing that others have added or want to add more):

from BW

American Colonies Vs Britain:

Causation:
Colonists widely perceieved as second class citizens by those living in Britain, and treated as such across the board: Disrespect

Governors selected by the Crown and imposed upon the Colonists; An island attempting to rule a continent; etc: illegitimacy

taxation without representation, sending the Army and Navy to Boston to inforce the rule of law: Injustice

Disbanding of colonial governments, ignoring or refusal to hear Colonial grievances, etc: Perception that no legitimate means existed to address all of the above.

Motivation:
Concepts of Liberty; Events like Concord, Breeds Hill, the Boston Masacre; The writen and spoken words of men like Thomas Paine, Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin.


Vietnam:

Causation:
French colonization; American reinstatement of French colonization; Western divsion of the country into two; American support for the Government established over the southern half: Illigitimacy, Disrespect, Injustice; no legitimate recourse to address.

Motivation:
The example of China in freeing itself from western colonialism through communism and insurgency; The leadership of Ho Chi Minh, Giap, etc;

I first have a hard time seeing why some factors in those conflicts are placed in the Causation box and others in the Motivation box. Both boxes include tangibles and intangibles, for example.

How do I make up my own little Causation and Motivation boxes for my little piece of heaven; and make them meaningful ?

Example: double role playing in a small village complex (ville + 5 hamlets; say 5000 population, located somewhere between Saigon and the Parrot's Beak):

1. "NLF" cadre commandant (actually regular PAVN, but of a peasant family from the village complex, who as a teen went North in 1954 and then was infiltrated back in the 60s).

2. VN Pacification commandant (regular ARVN, also from the village complex, but from a family of local notables; long service, but relatively low grade because he lacks "Saigon connections").

Posit roughly equivalent military resources.

How do the revolutionary and the counter-revolutionary each use your Causation and Motivation constructs for his own purposes ?

Regards

Mike

[slapout9]

So which is primary Motive or Causation? I say motive because insurgencies are caused by people and people have a motive before they start causing things to happen. Thoughts?