Applied Smart Power by a SEAL

[J. Robert DuBois]

I would 200% agree with that and not only for USA.
But I will also warn you about the effect of a soldier distributing soccer balls and medecine to population and believing this has no bad effects.... Does not mean that civilian action cannot support a military objective. But I believe that military trying to carry civilian actions in war zones is as bad as civilians trying to conduct military operations. Each of us have his area of expertise and sometime it can be melte but keeping the apparences of separation does help both sides.

M-A,

Thank you for your insight. I agree that healthy boundaries between civil and military actors are very important. If professional soldiers become distracted by playing with children, then no one's keeping watch while the bad men approach and everyone loses.

I think an important question is whether we have anything at all precisely resembling a "war zone" between OIF and OEF. In both Iraq, where I spent thirteen months over 2008-2009, and Afghanistan, where I am settling in for a spell, there are no battle lines - only geographic and societal blobs that are less bad and more bad from our various perspectives.

Within those blobs, there are hundreds of thousands of human beings who are in no way involved in taking up arms against "our" side. Each one of them requires some food, some clean water, some adequate shelter...and yet there are others who are actively engaged in killing as many outsiders as possible.

With this scenario in place, the situation obviously demands that we maintain both military and development units in the theater. A simple abandonment of the population's needs will inevitably result in increased hostility toward us. That's the practical application of my "Applied Smart Power" - it is in my own best interest to look out for the interests of those around me. If altruism seems a little too ambiguous, we at least have self interest to fall back on.

What should also be obvious, but isn't effectively put into practice, is the desperate need for unified coordination of all elements with some stake in the game, not just military commanders and civilian chiefs running independent operations according to their very capable, but un-coordinated judgment. Such ops almost always have some detrimental overlap to the best interests of other efforts.

[M-A Lagrange]

What should also be obvious, but isn't effectively put into practice, is the desperate need for unified coordination of all elements with some stake in the game, not just military commanders and civilian chiefs running independent operations according to their very capable, but un-coordinated judgment. Such ops almost always have some detrimental overlap to the best interests of other efforts.

How to tell you that I do agree.
The funniest in the story is that I am one of those relief workers and my personal life looks just like yours: mud and dirty places in forgotten war zones with less than few weeks at home with my family... THhs just to point out that relief workers and militay have most of the time the same ####ty family life at the end. Therefore boundaries are even thiner than we think.

What you are pointing out is exactly what I would like to see/to be. The main problem is that there is a feeling of being absorbed by the humanitarian community from the military and a feeling of being absorbed by the military by the humanitarian community. Which I believe both true and an opportunity for both.

The real question is who stays in command. And the main blocage does not come from the military but from the humanitarian community. It is "stupid" because humanitarian agencies are having political goals and agenda and are bound to political civilian leaders. But the romantic understanding of humanitarism being independant is still strong while the practical implementation of humanitarism is 200% political. And that is why I stand on a moral approach of war.

I also believe that the fact that humanitarism is based on moral values is somehow scary for soldiers or military bodies. But war is a deep desagreement settled through violence between respectable gents. Or should be. starting from there, humanitarism is just making there to remind the boundaries of respectability (humanity?) and patch the disagreement of that way of settling issues.

I think an important question is whether we have anything at all precisely resembling a "war zone" between OIF and OEF. In both Iraq, where I spent thirteen months over 2008-2009, and Afghanistan, where I am settling in for a spell, there are no battle lines - only geographic and societal blobs that are less bad and more bad from our various perspectives.

Well, looking at history shows that the frontline and clearly define war zone is a myth. I never worked in a place where you have A war zone and A nonwar zone. The only example to tell I am wrong that comes streight to my mind is the WWI. But wars are no more conducted that way.
In somehow, we are all rediscovering the weel and it is mostly because the capacity of relief societies to enter in the very heart of the war has increased. What happend in Swat Valley show also that we are trying to go reverse. But unfortunatly, it is impossible to empty a whole country from its population. And should not be done. That is why, according to me, soldiers have to benefit from the increase of humanitarian laws and concerns. But most look at it as more limits.

Good luck in Afghanistan.

[jmm99]

Some quick refs. His Wiki. His Playboy interview (just before he died in 1972). His last book, Rules for Radicals.

Ms Clinton (when she was Ms Rodham in 1969) wrote her senior thesis on Alinsky and his methodology. Her conclusion was that ground-up organizing was too slow - and opted for the larger governmental approach.

While Alinsky was a Marxist, his methodology has value (but is not The Bible) in any type of ground-up organizing, even for those of, say, a center-right political bent (e.g., JMM). So, also a lot of Lenin, Mao and Giap re: the Political Struggle and the Military Struggle, which have to be on the same page in order to reach an acceptable (note, I said acceptable) end state.

There must be dozens of existing threads here at SWC which address the concepts of "Smart Power" at its basic level (down to the people and villages). And, COL Jones has yet to chime in on the subject.

Best to all

Mike

[J. Robert DuBois]

...This is such an excellent discussion. You two and others are bringing a lot of valuable perspective and information. (You can be sure, though, that I'll be extremely wary about flavoring my Applied Smart Power for conflict reduction with references to a published Marxist! As Paul and John sang, "If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, ain't nobody gonna listen to you anyhow.")

As a new guy, I still feel bad for tying up our Hail & Farewell bin - is there a moderator or tech wizard who could export the whole thing to another section? Alternatively, would a veteran recommend I open a new thread to pick up the conversation?

[slapout9]

As Paul and John sang, "If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, ain't nobody gonna listen to you anyhow.")

What...... somebody say Paul...John.....The Beatles.....Revolution Live version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Imb4tYOk8GE

[Tom Odom]

Where I confused the matter is in emphasizing that international aspect, compared to my actual focus on the inter-personal. I'm borrowing from Nye, Nossel and Clinton because their macro expression structurally reflects my micro view.

Good starte with Joe Nye; I worked with/for him in Rwanda. I recommend his book, the main thesis I would describe as "we often achieve our greatest effects because of what we are and what we are seen as versus what we do."

Tom

[MikeF]

Good starte with Joe Nye; I worked with/for him in Rwanda. I recommend his book, the main thesis I would describe as "we often achieve our greatest effects because of what we are and what we are seen as versus what we do."

Tom

Tom,

Serious question.

Is that meant only for the strategic level? On the ground, I lived by Facta non Verba- deeds not words.

Mike