How do We Train to Match our Actions to Our Narrative?

[Rob Thornton]

select actions that condition expectations.

Marc - let me chew on that one awhile. How would you train it? Best, Rob

[Rank amateur]

Marc - let me chew on that one awhile. How would you train it? Best, Rob

If you want people to trust you, promise something you know you can deliver: even if it's a volleyball net. Never promise anything you can't.

If you want people to fear you, (you can probably fill in the next part.)

If you want to establish order, don't leap up and down the chain of command (your chain, or their chain.) Address every issue orderly, by talking to the proper person, in the proper time frame, in an appropriate manner.

Don't intervene in local disputes - like who gets to keep the cow - unless you're prepared to adjudicate every dispute about cow ownership.

Don't hand out money, unless you know you'll be able to keep handing out money.

etc.

[Rank amateur]

When the narrative is simple and emotionally powerful, it's easy. The classic example is World War II "Hitler is evil and needs to be killed." Everything the military did, from invading Normandy to ordering winter boots, was moving towards the goal of killing Hitler. Eventually, even the Germans came to accept our narrative. (Partially because our generals were smart enough to open up the concentration camps and make sure that the population saw the truth.)

I think Mark's paper had an excellent suggestion. If you find yourself without a strong narrative, or with a narrative that is not being accepted by the population, make up your own narrative in conjunction with the local population.

Understand that you can make up your own narrative without trying to or being aware of it. (When we occupied Saddam's palaces we sent out the message "the new boss is the same as the old boss," even if we didn't mean to. If you promise peace and quiet, and the Air Force practices strafing runs over the village, you are creating the narrative that the Americans are lairs, even if you have no control over the Air Force's decisions.)

Also, as an ad guy, I would strongly suggest that you are asking the wrong question. Marketers don't ask, "How can we sell more soap" even though their objective is obviously to sell more soap. They ask "How can we make soap that makes consumers better cleaner, healthier, etc." (Or "How can we convince them that our soap does that, even if it's just the same as the other brand of soap.") It's never about us. It's always about what our soap can do for our customers. (Even if we spread BS, it's BS that the customer wants to hear.)

If I add any value to the council, and it is certainly possible that I don't, it's these nine words "Our military sucks at understanding our enemies narrative." As an example, I would suggest that in Vietnam, given their history of being invaded by foreigners, that no matter what we did we would never be able to change their narrative. We'd always be perceived as the next in a long history of foreign invaders. But we kept insisting that by changing tactics we could win.

I think that in Iraq if we had left after getting rid of Saddam, a lot of people still would've been upset with us, but they would've needed to admit that we did what we said we were going to do.

On your next deployment you will probably find that there is no strong narrative for why you're there: at least not one that is accepted by the population. Understand the local narrative, and weave yourself into it. (If you don't understand what Saddam's palaces mean to the local population, you may weave yourself into it in a way that makes your life difficult.) I would suggest that your life will be much easier, and you'll be much more successful, if you avoid cultural narratives and try to create more of a business transaction narrative. For example, "Together we kicked AQI's butt." "Together we brought peace." "Only the Americans could cure the cancer of the tribal chief's son. The chief expressed his gratitude in the traditional way. We humbly accepted his gift. It was the start of a partnership."

So to answer your question succinctly. Make a simple narrative that most of the population supports. (Or even better,learn the narrative that your predecessor wove.) Make it simple. "I promised this village peace and quiet. They promised me they'd get rid of AQI." Make it clear to your troops that they can bomb a school if AQI is hiding in it, but that if they ever drive noisy tanks through the middle of town, they're going to make you look like a liar, and you'll make sure that they regret making you look like a liar.

Your troops may never be able to explain to their families why bombing a school was OK and driving tanks thorough the middle of town wasn't, but they'll do the right thing.

Even more succinctly: if you can train your troops to rush into the teeth of a near ambush, you can train them to do anything. You just need to be very clear about how to recognize a near ambush and how to respond.

[Ken White]

You make some things more simple than they can ever be, as I suspect you know -- but your points are all right on. Clear, concise and germane. Good job.

[Rank amateur]

Thanks. I appreciate it. (I've always felt that the more people that are involved, the simpler you need to make things.)

[Jim Rodgers]

I want to chew this one over for a while, but think a few things are worth talking about right now.

I don't know that anything gets you to where you need to be other than accepting that Information Operations is a core war fighting function - then training, and perhaps organizing, accordingly. This goes for every level of command, down to the company level (and would probably require at least a full understanding at the platoon leader\commander level). If IO is a core function - then you're going to plan for it, synch it with your other functions, and perhaps even build around and take initiative with it.

We talk a lot about how important IO is, but I'm not sure how much it's really sunk in yet. At this point most everyone gets the importance of talking to the locals, but that instinct, though a prerequisite, isn't the end all. We're starting to staff for it at higher levels - but if something is an operating system\function for a division commander, than it probably should be for the company commander as well, at least in this kind of a fight.

I've been fairly surprised by how many very experienced officers had relatively little experience with PSYOPS, narratives\themes\talking points, etc. I just did a quick review of the drafts of the new 3-0 and 5-0. A doctrinal move in the right direction is the emphasis on "information engagement" (PSYOPs, roughly speaking) as something that belongs under scheme of maneuver, instead of buried down in Annex P, which is either deemphasized or eliminated all together. A small thing, perhaps, but train enough of the Captains who are going to be your junior commanders and assistant 3s on it, and it may start to spread through the force. Or maybe not. We'll see. I would have liked to have seen it explicitly included as one of the new Warfighting Functions (replaces the old Battlefield Operating Systems), but I suppose I'm splitting doctrinal hairs at this point.

Other things to think through are staffing. LTC\Dr. Kilcullen addressed in the 28 Articles the identification of a cultural advisor to, key point, shape the environment rather than analyze it. Maybe that could be formalized at the company level - we have ASI producing IO courses right now, and not just at Sill. Formalizing it too much could be counterproductive in terms of identifying the right personality, but it's something to consider.

A little bit of a rambling reply. I'll try and sort it out a little better and post back later.

[William F. Owen]

Most peoples idea of a narrative is going to be based on what they observe, not what you tell them. Action is always louder than words.

The object has got to be, to do no more harm than is necessary. That means try not to do thinks than cause Unnecessary offence and when you do Have to cause offence, cause the minimum.

Things that cause offence are a great deal more cross-cultural than many like to believe. They make out that it is frightfully complicated to compensate for their own ignorance. My personal experience is that people only really get offended if you clearly don't care that you are causing offence. Dumb ignorant behaviour in Mississippi is dumb and ignorant in Mogadishu, or even Karachi. Obviously there are some exceptions, but generally I believe this holds true. What I learnt about polite behaviour at school in England has stood me in good stead all over the world.

As my wife points out, only hookers wear high heels with swim suits. If it looks good on stage in a bar, then it will probably bomb at a wedding or Bar-mitzvah. You don't need a 6 week PSYOPS course to learn this.

We all know that in most cultures it is considered it polite to remove foot wear when entering peoples houses, and to take off dark glasses when speaking to them. Pointing guns at women and kids, or people unlikely to be armed is also generally bad. Maybe we have to teach folks that? Maybe we have to consider normal behaviour subject to ROE?

[Rob Thornton]

Some great posts - and I pretty much agree with all that has been said - but there is one thing that Marc T said that I think deserves some more thinking:

select actions that condition expectations.

What if we substituted "select" for "plan"? What if found a way to insert "reinforce" after "select"?

Part of this gets to understanding the potential effects your actions (and the various reactions and inter-actions of the other participants) have, and then detrmining if those were actually the effects you achieved. Not easy by any stretch in the conditions we're operating in. Each element - platoons, companies, BNs, BCTs, & higher echelons are going to have their own understanding of what reality is, and what effects their actions are generating. Overcoming bias at each level is key, but not easy.

More to chew on I guess.

Best to all, Rob