What to Know Before You Go

[William F. Owen]

Hey Doc,

Okay, I actually happen to agree with you that such targeting is beyond the pale. Still and all, that is a special case in the history of warfare. Civilians have been routinely targeted in the past (including WW II), so a modern convention cannot be used to create a model that covers warfare per se; which was one of my goals.

I'm slightly uncomfortable with the idea that model that covers warfare might not a base that describes the moral and legitimate basis for the use of violence. I would want to consider this in the context of other things like slavery, as being considered wrong in our current cultural context.

Sure, at second hand. I have no problem with the causal effects of targeted violence acting to break someone's will, only with restricting it to the opposing military force. We may be having a bit of a word problem here - I would include "breaking will" under the more general heading of "changing perceptions".

Concur. The point being that violence, or the successful resistance against violence, creates the belief that you aim to benefit from.

On where terrorist narratives come from, the one you mentioned is certainly a powerful situational one. But does it always apply? I don't think it does, and I can point to some examples (not many) - the 7/7 bombers, some of the radical student groups in the 1960's US, some of the radical ecological and animal rights groups (although you could argue that they transfered that narrative to the ecology or animals).

The 7/7 boys saw themselves as victims, or aligned somehow with the oppressed. I think all violent radicals are driven by a very powerful internal narrative (or even dialogue!! ). Culture has a massive part to play in this, and some cultures are very good at creating violent radicals.

I think we have to draw a distinction between a narrative and a character (stereotype). They certainly reinforce each other, but they aren't the same. Narratives are more process/outcomes oriented, while characters tend to be fairly static (okay, except when they are a recognized process character like the Hero, etc...).

Never thought my training as a novelist and screenwriter would be useful in military thought, but I agree. Using Vogler, or Campbell, as my starting point I would suggest that character arc is critical, as most people sees themselves as the hero. (which is why in Blackfoot my hero was described as boring and two dimensional!!)

I think it's possible to do so, but also don't forget that a lot of the stuff in that paper isn't aimed at the opponent; it's aimed at the homeland population and global public opinion. Let's go back to the Vietnam example again; the war was lost because of politics in the US and globally. If that's the case, then not considering those populations is like a military force leaving both flanks open with neon signs saying "Hit Here".

Broadly I agree, and I think this is very important. Yes, you have to support the Trinity, BUT... if you start aiming action at your own population, my feeling is that you may be close to breaking the law, if you are a military organisation. - and Clausewitz rocks!!

Bangkok is more likely than Tel-Aviv, but you never know . Maybe we can split the difference and meet in Leipzig (I'll be there again summer of 09).

I hear there are some places in Leipzig, that do good coffee and cream cheese bagels! - so I'm in.