Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 81 to 84 of 84

Thread: Motivation vs. causation

  1. #81
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    I think state formation is an important element and is a primary factor in a lot of the problems we see today with "failed states." That's one reason I keep bringing up the issue of borders because, in many cases, borders were imposed and are a continuing source of conflict. There wasn't a natural evolution that developed into a social contract and nationhood - instead a bunch of different peoples were conglomerated and given a name. I'm not sure there is much that additional outside interference (ie. "Development") can do to create or improve a social contract in that case. It might make problems worse.

    There's also the question of institutions and I think they are some of the stickiest glue that enables a "social contract" that keeps peoples together in a big tent. For example, in Pakistan there is the Army. What is there in Afghanistan? Somalia? Yemen? Nothing except Islam which brings up another set of issues. Can outsiders develop such institutions? It seems to me the track record on that isn't very good.

  2. #82
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    From my current perch in the middle of things here in Southern Afghanistan, I get a chance weigh these theories against the facts I deal with daily, and the various programs that higher develops.

    One area drawing a lot of focus is that of Reconciliation and Reintegration (or "forgive and forget" as I think of it.) Personally, I think we are worrying too much about this, and that to over formalize or overly shape this from our outsider perspective would be as likely to be harmful as helpful, but that is not what I wanted to address.

    In reviewing some R & R documents, it struck me that we are really dealing with two distinct types of insurgency with the Taliban, and it divides on hierarchical lines.

    For the Taliban senior leadership, I believe it is primarily a "Revolutionary Insurgency” (In BW, there are three broad categories of Insurgency: Revolutionary, Separatist, and Resistance). For revolutionary insurgency Causation and Motivation are more distinct than for a resistance insurgency. I believe that the key to R & R with the Taliban leadership must address the Causal factor of the illegitimacy of the Karzai government; that there must be some place for their ideological concerns in the new government; and that lastly, the presence of the foreigners must be reduced.

    For the rank and file, I believe it is primarily a resistance insurgency. 50-80% fight simply because we are here, or because we are here and they can draw an honest wage as well to attack that foreign presence. I think they don't spend much time thinking about the government in Kabul, or its legitimacy. I think they don't much think about the TB ideology. For them the key factors that must be addressed are virtually the inverse of those for the senior leadership. BL, is that I don't believe we need to really worry about the majority of the populace to address the causal factors for the insurgency writ large, and that the COIN / R & R effort must focus on addressing the issues of the leadership.

    This throws a wrench in the POP COIN machine to a degree. Yes, we must treat the populace with respect, no, we can't kill our way out of this (merely killing senior leaders drives the Pez effect. New ones keep popping up). We must enable a legitimate process that includes the leadership of this large, disenfranchised segment of the populace. In so doing, we will be able to bring them into the system and bring legitimacy to the system at the same time. This stands leadership down. Then we can reduce our presence. This stands the rank and file down.

    But you must address the leadership first.
    Last edited by Bob's World; 02-03-2010 at 02:03 AM.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  3. #83
    Council Member Beelzebubalicious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    currently in Washington DC
    Posts
    321

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    It's an interesting term, especially since they are using it in the 19th century sense. Technically, using "covenant" as a "coming together" it is correct, although you're right that it now carries religious connotations. How do you see it as being useful for development work?
    Well, USAID is using it in terms of "accountability covenants" between civil society and government, the key definition being binding relationships where each side holds the other accountable. This starts with both sides understanding each others role and responsibility in a democratic society, something which takes years to develop. In many countries I've worked in, there's a huge level of distrust on both sides, a sense of entitlement on the citizen side (high expectations and frustration) and on the government side, the perspective that citizens don't know best, should not be involved and that government should make decisions themselves.

    I think USAID wants to take the whole idea of social contract a step further and to make it almost a sacred trust, a stronger bond. Unfortunately, citizens holding government accountable often means taking the "watch dog" role and it is inherently antagonistic, which further deteriorates the relationship and bond. On the other side, civil society working closely with government can also mean co-option and lack of objectivity.

    This kind of approach often fails to take account of or approach the issues of power and political economy. So, coming around to answer your question, I'm not sure it has much validity, or at least I think I need a lot more convincing. The World Bank has claimed success in using this kind of a method in Indonesia on the Community-Driven Development (CDD) approach at the village level and CDD has been adopted by USAID and now the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in other places. The WB has done a lot of impact evaluation and they have some compelling arguments that it works.

  4. #84
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Beelzebubalicious,

    Quote Originally Posted by Beelzebubalicious View Post
    Well, USAID is using it in terms of "accountability covenants" between civil society and government, the key definition being binding relationships where each side holds the other accountable. This starts with both sides understanding each others role and responsibility in a democratic society, something which takes years to develop. In many countries I've worked in, there's a huge level of distrust on both sides, a sense of entitlement on the citizen side (high expectations and frustration) and on the government side, the perspective that citizens don't know best, should not be involved and that government should make decisions themselves.
    I suspect that a largish part of the problem lies in the concept of "democratic society" . It was certainly part of the mythography of the 20th and early 21st centuries, but has been too much of a failure in too many parts of the world to be appealing. Federal Republican versions of it usually flop when the people running it realize how much they can skim, while parliamentary types flop without a long held crown as a counterpoise. I suspect many of the countries in, say, Africa, would do better with a canton-esque confederate system a la 18th cenrtury Switzerland.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beelzebubalicious View Post
    I think USAID wants to take the whole idea of social contract a step further and to make it almost a sacred trust, a stronger bond. Unfortunately, citizens holding government accountable often means taking the "watch dog" role and it is inherently antagonistic, which further deteriorates the relationship and bond. On the other side, civil society working closely with government can also mean co-option and lack of objectivity.
    Typical, unfortunately. At a cultural level, it would be analogous to the Commonwealth stepping into US politics and saying "Nice try, guys, but we've decided you need some stability, so we are re-establishing the monarchy". There are other alternatives to that watchdog, antagonistic role - you might want to glance at the preface to the 2nd edition of Durkheim's The Division of Labor in Society where he talks about "intermediate systems" in a large society. People are, as a general rule, more likely to trust people they actually know.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beelzebubalicious View Post
    This kind of approach often fails to take account of or approach the issues of power and political economy. So, coming around to answer your question, I'm not sure it has much validity, or at least I think I need a lot more convincing. The World Bank has claimed success in using this kind of a method in Indonesia on the Community-Driven Development (CDD) approach at the village level and CDD has been adopted by USAID and now the Asian Development Bank (ADB) in other places. The WB has done a lot of impact evaluation and they have some compelling arguments that it works.
    Hmmmm, yeah, I can see that. Covenants that aren't enforceable in this world or the next tends to be not worth the paper they are written on .

    Cheers,

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

Similar Threads

  1. Paper: Rethinking Role of Religious Conflict in Doctrine
    By milnews.ca in forum Social Sciences, Moral, and Religious
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 01-18-2010, 03:01 AM
  2. FYI--Draft Paper on Insurgent Motivation
    By SteveMetz in forum Adversary / Threat
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-17-2009, 10:28 AM
  3. Youth Radicalization or Extremism research
    By Beelzebubalicious in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-11-2009, 01:52 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •