What to Know Before You Go

[SWJED]

What to Know Before You Go: 10 Questions to Ask Before, and During, a Mission

Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D

The attached paper is the pre-conference discussion draft that will be presented at the Stability Operations & State-Building: Continuities & Contingencies Conference at Austin Peay State University on February 13-15th, 2008. The editors of the Small Wars Journal have graciously agree to post it so that people will have an opportunity to read it before the conference.

Abstract

In this paper, I argue that warfare and "peace building" are forms of communicative action in Habermas' sense of the term. Drawing on Canadian Communications Theory, Symbolic Anthropology and the work of Bronislaw Malinowski, this paper examines three main areas of military operations in terms of communicative action – communication about global policy, communication in the operational environment, and communication in terms of narrative-mythic structures – and uses them to pose specific operational questions.

[marct]

Just wanted to thank you for posting it . Comments, criticism, etc. all welcome. This is the pre-conference draft and the final version isn't due until after the conference.

Marc

[Rank amateur]

Originally Posted by SWJED

communicative action in Habermas' sense of the term.

As a Spinozist and continental rationalist, I'll refrain from comment since I'm biased agianst Habermas' theory of communicative action.
(I think it's fairly obvious that his argument that the growth of a commercial mass media, has resulted in a situation in which media has become more of a commodity – something to be consumed – rather than a tool for public discourse is no longer relevant in a world where the mainstream media reports on the "blogosphere.")

[marct]

Hi RA,

Originally Posted by Rank amateur

(I think it's fairly obvious that his argument that the growth of a commercial mass media, has resulted in a situation in which media has become more of a commodity – something to be consumed – rather than a tool for public discourse is no longer relevant in a world where the mainstream media reports on the "blogosphere.")

Oh, I agree with that - even worse is his two volume monstrosity (which I read - twice ). Still, the basic concept is , I think, a useful one. At any rate, I'd be interested to see what you think about it.

Marc

[Rank amateur]

When I first read the 28 articles I found the article on cultural narratives woefully lacking in detail, so overall I'd say that your paper is very worthwhile. It is also very good. I was especially fond of the section on creating new shared narratives. I thought it was very practical and useful.

I'll make a couple of suggestions for additions, based on some comments that I've read here from other council members. (They may be beyond the scope of your paper.) Some people are much more committed to the American narrative than others: particularly the Bible. Can they be effective? Do you have any advice for these individuals or their commanders?

While you discussed the pace of social engineering etc, I sometimes get the feeling that there are many - and the president might be one of them - who feel that counterinsurgency techniques are a way of imposing an American narrative on other cultures. (Gates recent comments suggest we're developing what I call "COIN arrogance.") Most people realize that we can't create another America, but the idea that we can make other cultures much more like ours seems to be common. (I read comments like, "It may not look exactly like our American democracy, but I am convinced that Iraq will be a democracy.") I wonder if it would be useful for you to be more explicit about the challenges/limitations of trying to impose/introduce our narratives on other societies.

Again, I found your article very good and useful, but the more I think about it, the more I hate the title. "What to know" implies a didactic approach and you use a Socratic one. "Before you go" implies some time limitations and there really aren't any; people need to think about the questions before, during and after your mission. Finally, your title is very plain spoken. Your piece is very academic - which is fine since you're an academic - but why be misleading?

Believe it or not, I am working on something that covers some of the same ground, from a much more prescriptive, didactic COIN POV. My synapses aren't used to the high intellectual standards demanded by the Journal, but if I ever get it to the point where it might be worthy of discussion, can I e-mail you a draft for your comments?

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by marct

Just wanted to thank you for posting it . Comments, criticism, etc. all welcome. This is the pre-conference draft and the final version isn't due until after the conference.

Marc

I am not sure criticism will be welcome. From reading this through once I think it took 32 pages to say what could have been done in 5.

I am also somewhat troubled by the choice of complex languages and ideas. It is my experience that assuming a reader knows what "Habermas' theory of communicative action" inoculates you from criticism since few are prepared to stand up and say "i don't get it" for fear of looking ignorant.

Well, I may have left school at 16 and only been an NCO, but I don't get it. I am not sure this paper helps our understanding of the problem. If some one can simplify this paper to make it more accessible, I'd be very grateful.

[marct]

Hi RA,

Originally Posted by Rank amateur

When I first read the 28 articles I found the article on cultural narratives woefully lacking in detail, so overall I'd say that your paper is very worthwhile. It is also very good. I was especially fond of the section on creating new shared narratives. I thought it was very practical and useful.

Thanks - I'd found most of the discussion on narratives limited.

Originally Posted by Rank amateur

I'll make a couple of suggestions for additions, based on some comments that I've read here from other council members. (They may be beyond the scope of your paper.) Some people are much more committed to the American narrative than others: particularly the Bible. Can they be effective? Do you have any advice for these individuals or their commanders?

That's a tough one and, yes, it is beyond the scope of the paper. On the whole, and without really trying to think it through, I think that the most powerful American narrative is the Declaration of Independence. The Bible comes in a poor second by comparison in terms of universal appeal (the reasoning and evidence behind that is somewhat complex).

On pragmatic advice I'd prefer to work with someone else to come up with that but, in general, I'd have to say that recognize you are controlled by narratives and that others are as well. Listen to what they say carefully and and then ask them to explain.

Originally Posted by Rank amateur

While you discussed the pace of social engineering etc, I sometimes get the feeling that there are many - and the president might be one of them - who feel that counterinsurgency techniques are a way of imposing an American narrative on other cultures. (Gates recent comments suggest we're developing what I call "COIN arrogance.") Most people realize that we can't create another America, but the idea that we can make other cultures much more like ours seems to be common. (I read comments like, "It may not look exactly like our American democracy, but I am convinced that Iraq will be a democracy.") I wonder if it would be useful for you to be more explicit about the challenges/limitations of trying to impose/introduce our narratives on other societies.

I thought about that, but there is a danger that it would be taken as deterministic, and it isn't. We all engage in cultural and social engineering every day and the cumulative effects are what we see reflected in our societies. In the case of state building, the process is just accelerated.

Originally Posted by Rank amateur

Finally, your title is very plain spoken. Your piece is very academic - which is fine since you're an academic - but why be misleading?

Well, first because I actually think it is fairly plain spoken - yeah, I'm that much of an academic . Second, I don't think it is misleading per se because, following along the Socratic line, what you have to know is he questions not the answers (they would be nice, but let's get real about it ).

Originally Posted by Rank amateur

Believe it or not, I am working on something that covers some of the same ground, from a much more prescriptive, didactic COIN POV. My synapses aren't used to the high intellectual standards demanded by the Journal, but if I ever get it to the point where it might be worthy of discussion, can I e-mail you a draft for your comments?

Sure, fire away, and thanks for the comments.

Marc

[marct]

Hi Wilf,

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

I am not sure criticism will be welcome. From reading this through once I think it took 32 pages to say what could have been done in 5.

Criticism is always welcome - even if I don't like it . On the page length, yeah, you are right although I think 8 pages would be more like it (more later).

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

I am also somewhat troubled by the choice of complex languages and ideas. It is my experience that assuming a reader knows what "Habermas' theory of communicative action" inoculates you from criticism since few are prepared to stand up and say "i don't get it" for fear of looking ignorant.

Hmmm, good point and it's a part of academic writing that I think has been ingrained in me. The language is complex because I try and use it in a very precise manner, which was not easy. The ideas are complex because I think the reality is complex and we have gotten into too much drek by assuming that things will be easy.

The final reason, and it gets back to your comment on the length,was that the conference itself is billed as "academic" and that is the genre. Okay, that's a cop out in some ways despite the fact it's true . Let me put it this way - I tried to aim the language, and paper, at a very specific audience using the language and form I did to start a discussion. If somebody doesn't know about Habermas, that's cool - you don't have to and, o be quite honest, I wasted too much time learning his stuff.

Forgive me, but I'm going to go on a bit of a rant here. What in the frak is wrong with saying you don't know something? There is something really wrong with any culture that requires people to act as if they know and, in reality, don't. Honestly, it really burns my bu&& ! I see it in too many of my students and colleagues and, while I actually do understand where it comes from (and I could explain it in excruciating academic detail), I think it is one of the stupidest things we, as a species, have come up with!

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

Well, I may have left school at 16 and only been an NCO, but I don't get it. I am not sure this paper helps our understanding of the problem. If some one can simplify this paper to make it more accessible, I'd be very grateful.

Wilf, thank you! BTW, my grandfather left school after grade 3 (around 8) and was an NCO. My father-in-law never graduated from high school and was an NCO. They were two of the smartest people I ever knew. Tell you what, why don't you shot me off an email and we'll see if between us we can come up with a version you think is accessible.

Marc

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by marct

Forgive me, but I'm going to go on a bit of a rant here. What in the frak is wrong with saying you don't know something? There is something really wrong with any culture that requires people to act as if they know and, in reality, don't. Honestly, it really burns my bu&& ! I see it in too many of my students and colleagues and, while I actually do understand where it comes from (and I could explain it in excruciating academic detail), I think it is one of the stupidest things we, as a species, have come up with!

a. It is a real pleasure to inhabit a board such as this, and with men this polite and smart.

b. Rant away Bro! I hear you. If we can make this idea of yours simpler and more accessible, I'm in.

...so, two questions.

A. Is your paper military thought? Is it something done by armed forces to aid in the defeat of another armed force?

B. Can the concepts that underpin it, be usefully abstracted into simple statements that aid in the better understanding of the idea?

[Rank amateur]

In my humble opinion, I'd say the paper is an introduction into how societys are built, structured and evolve, for soldiers who are asked to reengineer societies. In my opinion, on a meta level, it strongly implies that societies are so fricken complicated that maybe soldiers shouldn't be asked to reengineer them - which you picked up on - by that is somewhat irrelevant since soldiers are being asked to reengineer them regardless of what I may think.

[Steve Blair]

I would think one way to simplify it would be to strip down some of the background intellectual framework. By that I mean prune down the anthro explanations of societies. It might be possible to direct some of that information into footnotes, referring interested folks to the primary sources if they want to get more. I know there's always that temptation to get sucked into the nuts and bolts of the framework, but is it really necessary to get your point across?

I also think the amount of framework might end up obscuring the main point of the article. You've got lots of background, but some of that space might be better used showing people just how to go about answering those questions. Historical examples, and a notional situation or two, might be just the thing for that. We were talking some time back about an idea where you'd take a situation and show it from a variety of cultural aspects so that a trainee could see how others might view a common "reality." That might work well for this idea.

[MountainRunner]

I think it might be useful to read the description of the conference Marc's paper is designed for. I agree his paper is very deep at times, but I think that's what the conference is looking for. On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure Marc can really help going deeply intellectual even if forced to crawl over broken glass buck naked in the freezing rain.

That said, here's the description of the conference:

During the course of the conference, we will look at theoretical, intellectual, and moral foundations of state-building as derived from the Age of Enlightenment, ethical norms, and religious values from various societies. We will hear success stories from the past and consider possible models for the future. Additionally, we will examine contemporary practices as related to us by serving military officers. Our speakers will include prominent authors, academics, Department of the Army officials, and representatives of non-governmental organizations. Our goal will be to draw together ideas that will enable the best possible practices for the future.

Military forces around the globe have long recognized that there are principles of war that, if followed, can enhance the likelihood of success on the battlefield. Conversely, it seems there should be principles of state-building that, if followed, can enhance the likelihood of “winning the peace.” Each of the presenters will be asked to nominate ten such principles, and the combined list will be submitted to moderated discussion groups composed of the conference participants. These discussion groups will be charged with the responsibility of distilling the list to a core set of about ten principles.

The highlights are mine. Sounds a bit colonial even with the “various societies” tossed in. Maybe they'll look at the socio-political-economic structures of the target territories, but I doubt the targets will take primacy over our “superior” systems. Maybe I'm wrong...

[Steve Blair]

Yeah, I know the conference brief is heavy on academic stuff. My comments are intended more for any attempt to shift the paper to a broader audience.

[marct]

Hi Wilf,

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

A. Is your paper military thought? Is it something done by armed forces to aid in the defeat of another armed force?

Okay, I will to admit to taking an almost evil glee in playing Socrates, but I'll have to answer your question with another question: "Is Al Qaeda a military in the sense of 'armed forces'?". I have no doubt that they are an "opponent" in the sense that they are "one group [trying to] chang[e] another groups’ perceptions of reality to align with the wishes, desires, preconceptions and perceptions of the first group", but are they "military"?

There's been a lot of discussion on taxonomies of conflict on the board: 4GW, 5GW, COIN, Conventional", Hybrid, etc. What most of them fail to do is really take Clausewitz seriously because, if you do, you inevitably end up with warfare (in any and all forms) as a subset of political (and communicative) action. In fact, if you follow along with the logic of it, all violence falls under this heading regardless of what it is called.

Now that, per se, doesn't really help most militaries in and of itself . What might do so is to start thinking about how "violence" is defined in various cultures and between them n both nation states and trans-national organizations. Hmmm, let me see if I can come up with an example. If "Warfare" is defined by a strict definition, say the maneuvering of infantry, cavalry and artillery to cut off supply lines, then anything that doesn't fall into that definition becomes "unconventional" and something that isn't "right and proper" for the military to deal with, even if it still involves the organized application of violence; it may even be defined as "illegal".

I would suggest that we need to be aware of this, and how the definition of what is "warfare" inevitably changes over time (and why), and that that is part of the broader category of "military thought". So, a long and involved answer but, yes, I would classify the paper as "military thought" - or at least within shouting distance of it.

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

B. Can the concepts that underpin it, be usefully abstracted into simple statements that aid in the better understanding of the idea?

Now that is the $64,000 ($64,375.04 CDN) question. I know that I could do it, but I also know that with how I write it would come out sounding a bit like Zen koans. I don't have a good enough gasp of that particular audience and I would have to be an idiot to think that I did (referring to previous rant.....).

Marc

[marct]

Hi RA,

Originally Posted by Rank amateur

In my humble opinion, I'd say the paper is an introduction into how societys are built, structured and evolve, for soldiers who are asked to reengineer societies.

Yup; and you can add into that how societies create interactive systems that help them co-define "reality".

Originally Posted by Rank amateur

In my opinion, on a meta level, it strongly implies that societies are so fricken complicated that maybe soldiers shouldn't be asked to reengineer them - which you picked up on - by that is somewhat irrelevant since soldiers are being asked to reengineer them regardless of what I may think.

I'm not going to make any statements about "should" here since, as you noted, it is irrelevant; soldiers are being asked to re-engineer societies. At the same time, we all engage in such engineering all the time - for example, every time I choose to help an ex-student to find a job I am engaged in social engineering (bypassing the formal HR systems by putting them in touch with my network contacts). That choice reinforces a general social trend towards a reciprocity system of organization that is, in general, completely opposed to the formal social institutions.

If we all do it anyway, then it is, IMHO, useful to know what we are actually doing and how it applies when we are interacting with other cultures and societies.

On a completely different note, one of the mental "flips" I was doing while writing the paper was to ask myself if Al Qaeda could use it - did it apply to them. If it didn't, then I had failed since I would consider hat to be a sign that I was caught up in my own academic narratives that didn't have as broad an application as I thought they did. When I ran through it with the mindset of an AQ planner, it worked quite nicely...

Something to think about.

Marc

[Rex Brynen]

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

I would think one way to simplify it would be to strip down some of the background intellectual framework.

I actually agree with Steve here--and I am an academic, and of the kind that attends the sort of conference in question.

Having read the paper over several times, I'm not at all convinced that Malinowski (in particular) and some of the broader theoretical contextualization (in general) adds more to the analysis in substantive insight than it takes away in distracting from the central points. I often found that I wished there was further discussion of the why/where/how tos of each of the 10 questions.

I think that we academics use theoretical jargon the way military folks use acronyms--it is partly to transmit complex ideas in a parsimonious way, and it is partly a tribal ritual intended to demarcate in- and out-groups

---

BTW Marc, I'm not convinced that conflict is always linked to the primary failure of social institutions. Assuming that the ability to organize and project violence for the purposes of maintaining security or enhancing communal power is also rooted in institutions, it might also signal the excessive "success" of some (over others).

Also, while I think you are right to assert the importance of justice in successful, stable conflict resolutions, I'm not sure I agree that "Finding a “story” that matches what all stakeholders can view as “just” is crucial to building a lasting peace" .. it may be enough that the parties view the outcome as "just enough" or "not too unjust" balanced against the costs of war (this is only a slightly tweak on your argument here--another advantage of jettisoning some of the theoretical contextualization or shifting it into footnotes is that it would allow you to pursue these issues more fully).

[marct]

Hi Rex,

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

I actually agree with Steve here--and I am an academic, and of the kind that attends the sort of conference in question.

I'm sort of in a 6 of one, half dozen of the other mind about this. I think it would definitely be useful but I'm not sure it this is the right venue for it.

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

Having read the paper over several times, I'm not at all convinced that Malinowski (in particular) and some of the broader theoretical contextualization (in general) adds more to the analysis in substantive insight than it takes away in distracting from the central points. I often found that I wished there was further discussion of the why/where/how tos of each of the 10 questions.

That was the sticking section for a lot of people who commented on the first draft of the paper. There were three main reasons for keeping the Malinowski stuff in there:

1. establish a common ground between cultures/societies that is different from the individualistic one inherent in Maslow's hierarchy (i.e. basic needs for a culture rather than an individual);
2. establish a context for talking about distinctions between "culture" and "society"; and
3. establish a taxonomy for figuring out required vs. desired changes in social institutions.

I would have liked to go into more detail in the specifics, but that gets us into some real problems. First was length; I had to establish the common ground before I could do any analysis and the analysis, especially using cases, would be quite long. Second was audience; I made a choice, and I may well have made the wrong one , that it was better to get that common ground out of the way first in this paper and then expand on it later.

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

I think that we academics use theoretical jargon the way military folks use acronyms--it is partly to transmit complex ideas in a parsimonious way, and it is partly a tribal ritual intended to demarcate in- and out-groups

Oh, yes, that is so true .

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

BTW Marc, I'm not convinced that conflict is always linked to the primary failure of social institutions. Assuming that the ability to organize and project violence for the purposes of maintaining security or enhancing communal power is also rooted in institutions, it might also signal the excessive "success" of some (over others).

I don't think that I said that - I believe what I said was that it is always so linked in the case of failing and failed states. Conflict, or at least controlled and "rules governed" conflict ("conventional" in the sense of being governed by some type of convention) may very well be a major part of intra and inter-social systems. That's certainly not a "failure" for those systems. What I was trying to get at was that such "conventions" may be viewed as failures by other actors in the inter-social systems who will then construct those "conventions" as "failed", and that those doing the constructing are often based out of totally different cultural institutions.

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

Also, while I think you are right to assert the importance of justice in successful, stable conflict resolutions, I'm not sure I agree that "Finding a “story” that matches what all stakeholders can view as “just” is crucial to building a lasting peace" .. it may be enough that the parties view the outcome as "just enough" or "not too unjust" balanced against the costs of war (this is only a slightly tweak on your argument here--another advantage of jettisoning some of the theoretical contextualization or shifting it into footnotes is that it would allow you to pursue these issues more fully).

Aargh! Good point, and I'll have to rewrite that part. You're absolutely right; I was trying to get at "satisficing" behaviour rather than absolute agreement.

On shifting more of the theory into footnotes, I'm already at 134 and, even for me, that is a lot . Part of that is the referencing system (I hate that style!). Still and all, I was seriously thinking about moving a lot of the Malinowski material into an appendix, but that didn't meet the genre requirements <sigh>.

I think I am going to have to expand this into a larger work with a lot more examples....

Marc

[selil]

Originally Posted by marct

There's been a lot of discussion on taxonomies of conflict on the board: 4GW, 5GW, COIN, Conventional", Hybrid, etc. What most of them fail to do is really take Clausewitz seriously because, if you do, you inevitably end up with warfare (in any and all forms) as a subset of political (and communicative) action. In fact, if you follow along with the logic of it, all violence falls under this heading regardless of what it is called.

Exactly! Which is why I've been thinking you can talk about war within a terrain (land, air, sea, surf and even cyber), but conflict on that terrain is a continuum between minimal conflict or a "peaceful" existence and catastrophic civilization ending conflict. At some point you switch from all is fun and happy to people running around with automatic weapons.

Other generational/taxonomical models are both to restrictive or unable to fully envelope the concept. In such cases the ontological process is to reduce the specificity of the definition which in a perverse turn makes it more accurate.

[wm]

Originally Posted by marct

There's been a lot of discussion on taxonomies of conflict on the board: 4GW, 5GW, COIN, Conventional", Hybrid, etc. What most of them fail to do is really take Clausewitz seriously because, if you do, you inevitably end up with warfare (in any and all forms) as a subset of political (and communicative) action. In fact, if you follow along with the logic of it, all violence falls under this heading regardless of what it is called.

Now that, per se, doesn't really help most militaries in and of itself . What might do so is to start thinking about how "violence" is defined in various cultures and between them n both nation states and trans-national organizations. Hmmm, let me see if I can come up with an example. If "Warfare" is defined by a strict definition, say the maneuvering of infantry, cavalry and artillery to cut off supply lines, then anything that doesn't fall into that definition becomes "unconventional" and something that isn't "right and proper" for the military to deal with, even if it still involves the organized application of violence; it may even be defined as "illegal".

Selil's response to Marc's point, wherein he called on ontology, has gotten me to thinking (which is always a very dangerous thing, as my undergraduate Metaphysics professor used to tell me rather routinely). We seem to take for granted that war or, to use a less loaded word, conflict is a subset of politics. This sets up a temporal or logical continuum which implies that political organization is prior to conflict. We seem not to have gotten too far by accepting this point of view.

I think that perhaps we might view organizing as a polis as a response to conflict--in other words, politics is a continuation of warfare by other means.. Since the choice of organization is unlikely to satisfy everyone invovled, the process of choosing to avoid cvonflict will create new coinflict, which makes it appear that war follows from political action rather than the other way round.

Perhaps old dead Karl just got it bass-ackwards. Someone might propose that we may be dealing with something that looks suspiciously like a chicken and egg question here. However, I think it is not such. Humans were social before they were civilized and, as a result of being "social," were engaged in conflict before they were political.

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by marct

Okay, I will to admit to taking an almost evil glee in playing Socrates, but I'll have to answer your question with another question: "Is Al Qaeda a military in the sense of 'armed forces'?". I have no doubt that they are an "opponent" in the sense that they are "one group [trying to] chang[e] another groups’ perceptions of reality to align with the wishes, desires, preconceptions and perceptions of the first group", but are they "military"?

Well playing Socrates is cool. Playing with Socrates may be problematic!

A Military force is, to my mind defined by action, so when AQ is defending a cave of conducting an ambush, they are a military force requiring military action against them. When they are planting bombs on the subway, they are criminals, requiring Police to counter them.

I don't agree with the idea that one group is trying to change another's perception of reality. I see the purpose of armed action as being to break the will of another, so that he will not resist change. He can have a very accurate perception of what that change may be. EG: You can no longer be a Nazi or support Hezbollah. The only message you are trying to get across is that to do so, will lead to your harm.

What changes peoples perception is - as you suggest - a narrative. That narrative is, I beleive the product of political action. - and only possible once military defeat has taken place.

...and as a novelist, I am extremely interested in narrative and archetypes. Blackfoot is Missing was written using classical myth story structure and archetypes. - BUT... I don't see these narratives as part of military thought, except the military action, as an extension of politics, should not undermine them. - which is what happens with Haditha, Abu Graib, and quite a few others.