Relative / absolute variables

[Fuchs]

Discussions about military affairs are often about certain variables, like "good governance". Such discussions are usually written in absolute terms.

That's misleading (at best) because warfare is about opposing forces (of whatever nature). Not absolute but relative is therefore the right way of describing things.

(Example: Electronic warfare equipment can be useless against a more modern EW-equipped opponent while being great against a poorly equipped one.)


Back to the recent example of "good governance"; we can ignore the "good" completely. It's not about being competent or such - it's about being the lesser evil (or greater good) in sum.

The decision between allegiance for one or the other party can be shown in abstract terms (although I'm no fan of math):

f(variables, constants for party 1) ? g(variables, constants for party 2)

with f and g representing functions and the question mark representing >, = or <.
(I don't dive deeper into details because those aren't really relevant.)

There are many relevant variables; diplomacy, sympathy, social proximity, diplomacy, bribing, governance, oppression/fear, trickery (just examples).

f and g are different functions. Being good at something isn't as important for one party as it is for another.

- - - - -

Using functions includes the possibility to factor in that not the real traits, but the perceptions. Perceptions vary among people and don't need to be close to reality.

The variables aren't alone. Constants play into this as well. Some people are prone to obey authorities, for example.

Those who already chose a side develop rigidity and are unlikely to change it (a constant that adds to 'their' side's appeal). Those who switch sides would otherwise be excessively prone to switch back very quickly.

Then again, keep in mind that f and g aren't the same for all people. They're just generalisations. f(...) may be greater than g(...) for some, while g(...) is greater than f(...) for others - the root of conflict. This can be shown mathematically with operators that multiply with the trait (and also incorporate the influence of perception).

It's likely that many people have similar functions for their decision, while few have very uncommon functions - the extremists who won't switch.

There's (at least) one more noteworthy influence:
A threshold for becoming violent. To prefer a party isn't the same as becoming a fighter. There are many different degrees of cooperation and support. There's even a zone of neutrality if one side is not much more favourable than the other.

- - - - -

OK, enough mathematical description of reality. My point is that much in warfare is relative, this applies very well to the people's choice of sides as well. This is a major topic of interest nowadays and the relative nature of both sides' strengths and weaknesses in this competition for allegiance is really important.

I hope I also reminded of the complexity of those choices. Losing people to the other side for one weakness may be compensated for by a strength or by fighting another weakness. It's not all about *insert silver bullet aspect of the day here*.


/ I guess all those paid anthropologists have long figured out and described hundreds of pages this stuff - one more reason to wonder why the talk is so much in absolute instead of relative terms.

[Ken White]

...........

[William F. Owen]

OK, enough mathematical description of reality. My point is that much in warfare is relative, this applies very well to the people's choice of sides as well. This is a major topic of interest nowadays and the relative nature of both sides' strengths and weaknesses in this competition for allegiance is really important.

Well here in the Mid-East we are supposed to have Absolute allegiances, but even they are not what they seem. Politics is pretty much all above the "relative" and rarely the "absolute."

I hope I also reminded of the complexity of those choices. Losing people to the other side for one weakness may be compensated for by a strength or by fighting another weakness. It's not all about *insert silver bullet aspect of the day here*.

3,000 years of history would not argue with you.

I guess all those paid anthropologists have long figured out and described hundreds of pages this stuff - one more reason to wonder why the talk is so much in absolute instead of relative terms.

The problem with folks other than good military historians dabbling in this field, is the use of terms, words and phrases which may actually obscure such observations!