Hi Guys,
Just back from chairing a session at the Canadian Political Science meetings - interesting one dealing with COIN and radicalization, and with some direct relevance to this thread.
Originally Posted by
Rob Thornton
I know from the interviews we've done (such as the Reid Pixler interview in the Mosul Case study) that military and civilian lawyers are playing a role in reconstructing legal systems, and in supporting local processes, but as I read JMM and Marc's discussion, I'm thinking of the requirement differently wrt development.
This does not just get into design, but back into the threads on SFA as an individually based capability and into the Plan, Train and Organize (particularly the Organize piece).
Agreed, Rob. I'm beginning to think we need a separate thread on the ontology of SFA (I know, John, you're running away ). It strikes me, and this was really hammered home as I listened to a great paper by Colleen Bell today, that we have to do some serious thinking about the implications of our terminology. Okay, I was predisposed this way already, but I really do think it is crucial.
Back to the Marc - JMM discussion part, the key linguistic term there is really "rule of law". As we pulled out, the crucial questions are "Whose law?" and "What form(s) does it take?" which, in a round about manner, get's us back to Robs point about endstates as the starting point for design. We want to achieve an endstate with qualities X, Y and Z, then we design the SFA mission to achieve them. The critical danger, and actually where I see sierra disturbers like me playing a key role, is asking those questions.
Let me take an extremely pragmatic argument line on this (I don't necessarily believe it, but it is a decent rhetorical device). If the endstate in nation X that is desired is that it will not be a safe-haven for terrorist attacks on Western targets, the the crucial goal must be some form of agreement whereby if attacks are made, then the reprisal for those attacks will be more costly for the attackers that those commiting the reprisal.
This goal is defined by several factors. First, the absolute reality that there can never be a 100% "Terrorist Free" zone. Or, to be somewhat snarky and use a favorite meme, "the only things in life that are 100% are death and taxes". Second, given that a 100% terrorist free zone is impossible, what deterents are available that have the highest probability of operating? It strikes me that the best form of "community policing" (for want of a better term) is policing carried out by the community itself rather than by an externally imposed force.
Third, and this flows from the previous two points, if this is so, then the source of legitimacy within such forms of community policing must flow from the community themselves. Or, in other words, "how do we get them to stop wanting to kill us".
The corroloary, and this is where we get into things like the Hittite code, is that constructing a desire to not attack us and, indeed, to beat the snot out of people who want to attack us, relies on culturally specific logics. Let me give an example of this.
In Kilcullen's recent book, he talks a lot about "accidental guerillas" - people who are attacking co-alition forces who are locals, but who have not bought in to the Takfiri [psychotic] world view. Within his broader discussion, he deals with a number of different mechanisms which varying cultures have developed to stop conflicts - Shura's being one. These are systems of "customary law", i.e. they will bring community self-policing functions into play if their results are not accepted.
Now in Afghanistan and, to a lessor degree Iraq and other places (Somalia, Kenya, the Sudan, etc.), these customary law sites (actually rituals) have been degraded by years of conflict: the concepts may still be there, but they are assuming an almost "Golden Age" quality (much along the same lines as AQ's Caliphate....). We should be able to take the "best" of the old customary law systems and "tweak" them, putting some teeth back in them, but part of this "tweaking" would involve tying them in to some form of centralized source of legitimacy (which is what the Hittite Code was trying to do).
What, I can hear people asking, does this have to do with SFA? Well, part of it is that people engaged in SFA require not only those personal "qualities" - that individual capability that Rob talks about - but, also, require enough mental (and, dare I say it, "spiritual") flexibility to say "Hey, wouldn't work for me, but if it works for you, go for it...". Being blunt about it, it requires the ability to cut through not only the other cultures BS, but you own cultures BS. For me, this requirement was hammered home in the interview with COL Brackney in the Mosul Case Study:There were some formal assessment tools that had come down through both the embassy office and the division that they would… I’m trying to think what the name was of the actual assessment tool, and I’ve got that image but it escapes me right now, but anyway, it was a very long form with all kinds of bubble charts about is it red, green, or yellow in different areas from how many educators were online, how many kids were in school to the quality of the services, was there X amount of electricity, and sewage treatments; and was the governor in place for more than six months, and did he have an actual council? There were all kinds of metrics that way, but there was kind of the underlying metric we had, which was how we were doing in a few key areas. Number one is, “are we seeing an impact, and are we seeing some democratic processes actually taking place within the provincial council and government?” [emphasis added]
It is the ability to "cut to the chase" and whipe away the BS. What is crucial, i.e. the minimally acceptable requirements?
Originally Posted by
Rob Thornton
I know Marc's interests and areas of specialty from conversing over multiple beers - his interests are diverse for sure
LOLOL - Oh, that's definitely true, Rob .
Originally Posted by
Rob Thornton
JMM has expressed a range of relevant knowledge on law - but what I really find intriguing is the ability to apply it to multiple area. I did not expect the Code of the Nesilim to show up, in fact I did not know there was such a thing, but it is precisely the kind of conversation and knowledge I think you want coming out of the design process.
Absolutely agree, there.
Originally Posted by
Rob Thornton
The link back to the other threads is that the ability to get the most out of design has a great deal to do with the caliber and knowledge of the people involved, the breadth of their combined knowledge and the ability and strength of the leadership to fully employ it. I'm not saying every design team needs to be fully staffed with all Marcs and JMMs - it might be resource prohibitive, however having one or two on the team would seem a worthy investment. What might be a balance between effectiveness and efficiency would be able to assemble talent outside of the immediate organization to form design teams relevant to the conditions and objectives.
Okay, I'll admit to being biased, but I think that is a good idea. Building a design team of Marc's and JMM's would, in all honesty, be a freaking disaster ! A really good design team, and it doesn't matter what the "product" is, is, in many ways, like controling a nuclear reaction (hat tip to Christopher Anvil for the anaology) - JMM and I are like fissionable material in the realm of ideas, without "dampening rods", all you will get is an explosion .
Originally Posted by
jmm99
------------------
The Hittites weren't that wonky - they had a realistic view of the facts of life:
Seriously, most of the Hittite Code involves the "Code of Personal Life", which is in place everywhere in one form or another (formal, informal or mixed).
Yup, and it's another good reason to go back to the early codes and, in some ways, the earlier the better. BTW, I never said that the Hittites were wonky, just that the idea of bringing them (and their legal code) into a discussion of modern SFA might be seen as wonky.
Bookmarks