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

[Rank amateur]

Would you be able to expand on that?

I can. I'm making very slow progress on an essay "The limits of COIN doctrine in a multifactional environment with a weak central government." I will be looking for comment and feedback. (For example, I'm not sure that I've used the word doctrine correctly.) I'll send you a first draft - when ready - through p.m. if you'd like.

I hadn't considered primal emotion until this thread, but diplomats do everything possible to remove primary responses before negoitations. (Excessive politeness limits the possibility of anger. They even feed everyone to make sure that they aren't hungry. etc.) Battle is obviously very primal. Diplomacy works well with multiple parties. War tends to be binary. (Even in a world war all the countries split into sides: i.e. Allies vs. Axis.) Traditional COIN is also binary: government vs. anti government insurgents.

I'm thinking about the problems/implications/potential solutions of "clearing and holding" in multifactional environments. Hopefully, I'll be able to get everything down coherently. Any thoughts, comments or relevant experiences from the council are very welcome.

To bring the discussion back on topic. If our actions invoke primal responses - fear, fight or flight - is it realistic to expect people to accept our narrative that we want political reconciliation? Obviously, we're trying to create fewer/weaker primal responses through less kinetic ops etc., and we're being more diplomatic - sipping tea with chiefs - so we've recognized the problem/issues. I hope to add something to the dialog.