SMALL WARS COUNCIL
Go Back   Small Wars Council > Military Art & Science Applied > It Ain't Just Killin'

It Ain't Just Killin' Applying influence, working with civil and private agencies, dealing with non-combatants.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-11-2012   #1
Bill Moore
Council Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,452
Default Trying to understand influence

http://houseofstones.wordpress.com/2...mber_161346600

Quote:
Much of the US Military is based on a fairly simple rule: if you want to get something done, go to the man in charge. Following the rule usually works efficiently.
Quote:
If a certain block is causing trouble, you follow the line to the next block above it and you tell that block to tell the block below it to fall back in line and do it quick.
The author, correctly in my view, implies the U.S. uses mirror analysis when responding to states, insurgencies, etc. If we operate this way, so must others.....

Quote:
All of these statements operate under the same basic assumption: if bad stuff in Pakistan is happening that we donít like, the way to stop it is to find the top block in the Pakistan line and block chart, and tell it to get all the blocks below it to do what it says.
The author focuses on Pakistan, but his points have relevance far beyond Pakistan. I do think we tend to have unrealistic expectations from our senior leader engagements. We should continue them, but realize other approaches are also required and theother approaches may actually be more effective.
Bill Moore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2012   #2
Dayuhan
Council Member
 
Dayuhan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Latitude 17į 5' 11N, Longitude 120į 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
Posts: 3,124
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
The author, correctly in my view, implies the U.S. uses mirror analysis when responding to states, insurgencies, etc. If we operate this way, so must others.....

The author focuses on Pakistan, but his points have relevance far beyond Pakistan. I do think we tend to have unrealistic expectations from our senior leader engagements. We should continue them, but realize other approaches are also required and theother approaches may actually be more effective.
This paragraph stood out to me...

Quote:
The self-enforced chain of command in the US military is a relatively new and impressive accomplishment for a human society. Itís taken a couple hundred years of relative internal peace to produce it. Pakistan hasnít had that, and they donít have that kind of chain of command. Thatís something I really wish at least the analysts of the US military and intelligence community could learn and help US military leaders learn. But as plenty of US military leaders have pointed out, they havenít.
All very well to discuss chains of command in the military, but in many cases we seek to exert influence in non-military situations, often with little regard for the political realities and processes of the country or countries involved. Even in the US, the government can't simply dictate what it wishes to be done at the behest of some foreign power.

I also think we're inclined to confuse influence with control. Expecting others to do what we want or to subordinate their perceived interests to ours is not a matter of influence, it's a matter of control. Talking about "influence" in terms of what you need to do "to get something done" represents a fundamental cognitive dissonance, a confusion between influence and control. Influence means you have some input, not that you get to decree what happens. Influence is shared: those we influence are also influenced by others. As long as we expect influence to assure that we get our way, we're bound to be disappointed, and we're likely to be seeking control rather than influence. That ends up doing little good, as those who seek control are often received... well, with about the same sentiment we'd apply to anyone who proposed to control us.
__________________
ďThe whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginaryĒ

H.L. Mencken
Dayuhan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2012   #3
ganulv
Council Member
 
ganulv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Berkshire County, Mass.
Posts: 885
Default Good advice, indeed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
The author focuses on Pakistan, but his points have relevance far beyond Pakistan. I do think we tend to have unrealistic expectations from our senior leader engagements. We should continue them, but realize other approaches are also required and theother approaches may actually be more effective.
As bullet points:
  • Donít assume that vertical authority is the only kind. This has been a common Western error through the centuries.
  • Even when dealing with a system with a purported vertical structuring of authority ask whether that system is actually functional. If I understand the Pakistan situation correctly, for example, there are multiple interest groups competing with one another within the framework of a (supposedly) rational bureaucracy.
  • Be aware that publicly associating with an individual or institution may undermine their authority depending on the pre-existence of anti-American sentiment, &tc. Again, Pakistan.
__________________
If you donít read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. Ė Mark Twain (attributed)
ganulv is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8. ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Registered Users are solely responsible for their messages.
Operated by, and site design © 2005-2009, Small Wars Foundation