Motivation vs. causation

[Bob's World]

Bob's World, Marx kinda thought the same way as you. Find a contradiction between the classes and exploit it (propaganda) until you create an armed conflict.

A leader with a message designed to rally the masses, taking positions that the government is either unable or unwilling to adopt as their own.

But such motivation must fall upon a distinct (targetable, actionable) segment of the populace that has perceptions of poor governance for this to really take off. This "poor governance" is what I define as some combo of perceptions of:
- Illigitimacy of the current government,
- Disrespect from the current government,
- Injustice from the current government,

coupled with a perception that there is no legiitimate recourse to address these grievances.

Marx said you'd find these people in the city. Mao looked in the cities and couldn't find them. So he went to the countryside and found them there. The "rules" didn't apply, but the principles did. And no, I really don't think that communism was an existential threat then any more than I think Islamism is an existential threat now. These were just the approaches that spoke/speak to the target populaces that also take positions that the counterinsurgent is either unable or unwilling to co-opt.

To overly focus on Motivation is to totally miss the ball on Causation. This is my big beef with all of our current "experts" in Terrorism, Islam, COIN, etc. They are all shooting the hell out of the wrong target.

Those all need to be scoped, supporting efforts to a main effort that is focused on a complete overhaul of US foreign policy.

Similarly, I think most European states must be much more focused on Domestic Policy (taking a page from the US Civil Rights movement and response in the 60s) to mitigate what poses the greatest risks to their countries, and that by overly engaging down range to support current US foreign policy enforcement is actually probably counter-productive to dealing with what threatens them most.

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

[jmm99]

As to this:

from BW
To overly focus on Motivation is to totally miss the ball on Causation. This is my big beef with all of our current "experts" in Terrorism, Islam, COIN, etc. They are all shooting the hell out of the wrong target.

Could you define and distinguish for me each of the terms "Motivation" and "Causation" in a factual historical context ?

Regards

Mike

[Bob's World]

As to this:



Could you define and distinguish for me each of the terms "Motivation" and "Causation" in a factual historical context ?

Regards

Mike

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;


Pick an insurgency, any insurgency. This isn't a card trick. The model fits virtually all the time. Depending on one's perspective though it is often hard to see due to a variety of reasons.

[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

[slapout9]

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;


Pick an insurgency, any insurgency. This isn't a card trick. The model fits virtually all the time. Depending on one's perspective though it is often hard to see due to a variety of reasons.

Bob,you forgot money.....we printed our own money which the UK couldn't stand and at one point refused to accept.......next thing you know folks is shooting at each other. link to short paperon the subject.
http://www.ajlambert.com/revolt/pap_mon.pdf

[Steve the Planner]

The story I heard was that the Southern Planters were up to their eyeballs in loans to London.

So when the economic slump hit, pressuring the Crown to want to make the colonists pay for their own security (taxes), a thing of great importance to the northerners, the southerners were being equally pounded by lenders in London.

Repudiation of british debts was a big deal to the southern plantation types.

Always seem to be a coalescence of events, and a broad cast of characters, each with their own motivations.

Steve