Motivation vs. causation

[slapout9]

But what an organization's "Cause" is is a very different thing from what the "causation" for a conflict is.

For an example, I listed above some aspects of what I believe contributed to causation for the American insurgency against Great Britain. Their cause however, was probably best summed up in one word:

Independence


I think it is very important to sort out the differences between causation, motivation, and cause when addressing an insurgency. By putting these very different things into the correct boxes, one can then begin to focus their efforts either as the counterinsurgent, or insurpport of the counterinsurgent, for best effect.

Most people I meet dump them all into one box, like a the way a typical guy dumps all his clothes into the washer. Sure, they get "washed", but it isn't particularly effective.

I would say it is Independence from Person(s) Acting as Tyrant(s).

[William F. Owen]

So let me get this right...

a.) War = the setting forth of Policy/politics via violent means, and the interactions that are inherent to that?

b.) Strategy = the use of force to get things done - in terms of the military contribution to strategy - and the adaptations that flow from the passion, reason and chance that are inherent to the use of force?

....thinking I read this somewhere else before......

I think in the case of Hitler, Oliver Cromwell, Napoleon, the Tsarist White Russians and Julius Caesar, folks fought very hard and in great numbers to ensure they had a tyrant in control of their lives - because they liked the idea of the stability that a single leader brought and did not like the idea of a ultimately "corrupt" democratic process. Funny that.

[slapout9]

So let me get this right...

a.) War = the setting forth of Policy/politics via violent means, and the interactions that are inherent to that?

b.) Strategy = the use of force to get things done - in terms of the military contribution to strategy - and the adaptations that flow from the passion, reason and chance that are inherent to the use of force?

....thinking I read this somewhere else before......

I think in the case of Hitler, Oliver Cromwell, Napoleon, the Tsarist White Russians and Julius Caesar, folks fought very hard and in great numbers to ensure they had a tyrant in control of their lives - because they liked the idea of the stability that a single leader brought and did not like the idea of a ultimately "corrupt" democratic process. Funny that.

Sorta, except we (US) wanted the right to choose our own Tyrant not use somebody elses.

[jmm99]

I'm happy to see that the Local Governance-Local Populace Section of the Ad Hoc SWC Civil Affairs Team (created by Steve the Surfer - ) is on the same page.

Admittedly, I could have gone further with Causation (both with multiplicity of causes and their proximity to the material situation - and which ultimate causes are "Acts of God" and which are "Acts of Man"). Been there and done that to some extent with civil litigation (where we look more to multiple causes and attribution of comparative fault than in criminal litigation, where its nature requires simpler solutions).

As you say:

....we as a species don't "know" about the first category in any really objective sense, only inter-subjectively.

and we get into a process similar to a Thomist proof of God taught to me by my mother (she taught RC religion). Fine for a matter of belief (after all, Credo means "I believe"), but not really a matter of objective knowledge (Scio = "I know").

-----------------------
So, as a practitioner, I'd rather focus on the "Causes" in the respective "Narratives" - and how those Narratives meet the realities of the situational environment. The best theoretical Narrative in the world will fall on its tail if it is not implemented on the ground at the local level (whether urban or rural).

Yes, I could have gone into "Causes" and the "Narratives" further - and suggested a study program (see last half of post, Distinguishing "Causes" from "causes" - that discussion would be a bookshelf added to what already exists). I'm not sure how much Mao-Giap and other Marxist-Leninist theory SWC wants to hear - not all here are red diaper or pink diaper babies (). The Marxists wrote the original books, except for the Indonesian Gen who wrote his original book from a center-right viewpoint.

In fact, if the Narrative is really "from the People, back to the People" in a positive feedback loop, where theses and anti-theses are worked into syntheses, and the syntheses are implemented at a local level so that the People can see that the Narrative works, then we have in your wonderful academic language:

Narratives structure lived, day-to-day experiences by providing both expressive and explanatory means for people to comprehend these experiences; they are the "interpretive schemas" I keep talking about. Where we get a really interesting "convergence" is between ideological and religious narratives which, basically, cover the same ground area by offering sometimes complementary, sometimes antithetical schemas.

Was your mother a Librarian ?

Best as always, Canuck

Mike

[slapout9]

Link to cross post on similar topic on good government.


http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...1337#post91337

[marct]

Hi Mike,

Admittedly, I could have gone further with Causation (both with multiplicity of causes and their proximity to the material situation - and which ultimate causes are "Acts of God" and which are "Acts of Man"). Been there and done that to some extent with civil litigation (where we look more to multiple causes and attribution of comparative fault than in criminal litigation, where its nature requires simpler solutions).

I remember getting into a really great discussion with some colleagues years ago on just where we picked up this idea of "causation" and "causality"; interesting, even if the final hours are sort of blurry . What is an "Act of God"? I find it fascinating how the line of inclusion / exclusion operates on it even as the category is still accepted.

and we get into a process similar to a Thomist proof of God taught to me by my mother (she taught RC religion). Fine for a matter of belief (after all, Credo means "I believe"), but not really a matter of objective knowledge (Scio = "I know").

The ex nihil, nihil fit? Hmmm, maybe, but the problem I have with the concept of "objective knowledge" is not that it can not and does not exists but, rather, the assumption that we as individual humans can perceive it and, after such a perception, communicate it inter-subjectively.

I notice that you are going back to Latin. Have you followed the earlier etymology of the word to its proto-Indo-European root, sci*? It means "to cut" or "parse", which has some interesting implications .

So, as a practitioner, I'd rather focus on the "Causes" in the respective "Narratives" - and how those Narratives meet the realities of the situational environment. The best theoretical Narrative in the world will fall on its tail if it is not implemented on the ground at the local level (whether urban or rural).

Totally! I'm more focused on the modelling so that I can figure out the mechanisms of local adaptation more than anything else. I already have a pretty good model that describes how local adaptations take place in categories and relationships, but it's still not good enough to really work that well; it describes the process nicely, but falls down on projecting outcomes....

Was your mother a Librarian ?

Nope, a self-educated (via drinking with profs) Anthropologist and theologian who was heavily involved in the CR movement in the 1960's.

Cheers,

Marc

[jmm99]

Hi Marc

As to this:

from marct
The ex nihil, nihil fit? Hmmm, maybe, but the problem I have with the concept of "objective knowledge" is not that it can not and does not exists but, rather, the assumption that we as individual humans can perceive it and, after such a perception, communicate it inter-subjectively.

juries do it everyday in civil cases by allocating causation and fault.

Yes, that is "inter-subjective communications" based on their perceptions. The problem, of course, is that another jury given the same facts could come up with a different allocation. Thus, a problem in predictability.

There are jury verdict reporting services (used by insurance companies and trial lawyers) which give ranges in different situations - "fuzzy patterns", which provide some guidance and perhaps an argument in settling cases.

So, in my book, "Causation" is something of a voodoo science - a mixture of credo and scio. PS: the only reason I use those terms is that my high school Latin teacher drilled them into my skull.

When you put together your model on "Causes" and the "Narrative", please let us know. This sounds interesting, but difficult:

I'm more focused on the modelling so that I can figure out the mechanisms of local adaptation more than anything else. I already have a pretty good model that describes how local adaptations take place in categories and relationships, but it's still not good enough to really work that well; it describes the process nicely, but falls down on projecting outcomes....

Regards

Mike

[Dayuhan]

I think BW has valid points if we're discussing insurgency. There's a certain problem in applying those points to our current conflicts, though, because we're not fighting against insurgencies. One of the reasons our current problem set looks so complex is that we keep slamming square pegs into round holes and trying to impose grandiose but imaginary and counterproductive constructs such as "war on terror" and "global insurgency".

We're fighting a war against AQ, but AQ is not an insurgency, unless we stretch the definition of insurgency far beyond the breaking point. AQ is not populace-based or nationally based, nor is it directed toward the overthrow of an existing government. It's never been able to muster sufficient support in any national environment to drive a true insurgency, though it has managed to exploit existing insurgencies that it did not create. AQ doesn't need to move the populace of any given nation to establish a COG and overthrow a Government, it draws its strength from diffusion and holding a relatively small but very highly motivated core of true believers spread out among a large number of national environments. An insurgency needs to establish a support base among a national populace, a terrorist group does not.

I don't see the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan as insurgencies either. We didn't start these fights to defend a government from insurgents, we started them to remove governments we found distasteful. We succeeded, and created power vacuums in both areas. What we are seeing now is not insurgency against established governments, it is armed competition to fill that vacuum. In each case we support one one of the contending parties, which we choose to call a government.

In this environment "good governance" may be less an issue than it would be in a traditional government vs insurgent scenario. The armed parties are not fighting for good government, they are fighting for power, which they will use to advance their own interests. The populace is less concerned with good governance than with staying out of the line of fire and with supporting whatever faction they think will best advance the interests of the groups they actually identify with, more likely to be defined by family, clan, tribal, or sectarian distinctions than by any concept of nationhood. "Good governance" is only an issue to the extent that it is defined as "governance that brings benefits and protection to me and mine".

In some cases, especially in Afghanistan, people may be fighting not because they object to bad government but because they simply don't want to be governed. In this case any external government constitutes bad government.

In short, I think BW makes valid points about what we might call the Cold War pattern of insurgency. I'm just not sure our current fights fit into this pattern.

[marct]

Hi Mike,

juries do it everyday in civil cases by allocating causation and fault.

Yes, that is "inter-subjective communications" based on their perceptions. The problem, of course, is that another jury given the same facts could come up with a different allocation. Thus, a problem in predictability.

Totally agree. I remember a while back reading about some experiments looking at perception effects in jury decisions where test juries sat on a case or listened to a transcript being read or just read the transcripts. Apparently, since it was an experiment, the accuracy rate of the juries increased along the same line. Sort of similar to the eye witness testimony problem .

So, in my book, "Causation" is something of a voodoo science - a mixture of credo and scio. PS: the only reason I use those terms is that my high school Latin teacher drilled them into my skull.

LOL - yeah, I tend to agree although the dolls used are just a tich different .

When you put together your model on "Causes" and the "Narrative", please let us know. This sounds interesting, but difficult

I will, if I can ever get it done . I've been struggling with it for years now and, while it's gotten better, I'm still not happy with it. Oh well, we'll see....

Cheers,

Marc