Applied Smart Power by a SEAL

[William F. Owen]

Wilf's "me shoot-um heap big many bad guy" approach may sound a bit neanderthal, but it has at least the virtue of knowing what it seeks to accomplish, and how.

Wow. Ten years of carefully crafted military thought reduce to a bumper sticker. I must be good!

It's actually more "If you put them down, and they stay down, stop shooting, so as the others will back off." - but yeah. Force gets you stuff, if you want it for reasons force justifies.

[Dayuhan]

Hey, it's the 21st century... if you can't say it in 140 characters or less, it's not really there at all.

Personally, I'd say there's some stuff force can get you and some stuff it can't get you, and more often than not it's just one part of what you need to do to get what you want, assuming that what you want is gettable - or even desirable - in the first place.

Now I have to work on getting that onto a bumper sticker.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Dayuhan,

All too often these determinations are reached with grossly insufficient understanding of the complex interplay of factions, interests, competitions, and infinite detail that prevails in the environments we seek to influence. Above all we suffer from an apparently overpowering urge to see what we want to see and believe those who tell us what we want to hear. As a result, Americans are often stupidest when we seek to be smart.

This statement is brilliant! I always shocked at the number of folks in the beltway that now advocate so called smart or soft power. This implies that prior to this outstanding idea we were advocates of stupid power?

Perhaps I'm being too harsh, but it seems to me that our ego causes considerable problems. In military units you hear our leadership state we're better than we ever were, "we" (read I) fixed the broken army of the Vietnam era, etc. Yet a more careful reading of history may reveal that the Army we had in Vietnam (prior to the large anti-war movement that undermined our force) was superior in many ways to the Army we have today.

Furthermore do we have more less power today as a nation (and as the West in general) than we did during the Cold War?

Diplomacy is now defined by a perverse set of political correct rules that have little to do with reality or our national interests. One simple case in point the West's reaction to Sri Lanka's victory over the Tamil separatist movement, which they won with military power. Now the West is questioning if their methods were perhaps too harsh? Of course it is much more humane to drag a conflict out for years, because militarily decisive solutions are obviously not smart or soft, just effective (at times).

Information is an area where we should excel, but for reasons unknown we disbanded the highly effectively Voice of America program, and we have developed a bureaucratic process for approvals of messages that have in effect left our forces (across the spectrum, diplomatic, military, etc.) paralyzed in this fight. Messages approved in the beltway are so watered down or altered they have lost all credibility or have completely missed the intent in the first place.

Military power should need no further explanation, we can't effectively use it to deny safehaven to the enemy, or to wage a war of attrition even if we desired to (in addition to using other methods that some now call soft power, funny how much more effective soft power can be when you carry a big stick). In fairness there are good reasons in many cases (not all) that the military is constrained, but it is a fallacy in my opinion to simply assume that a more aggressive application of military power can't be effective in some situations.

Economic power has eroded because we have seemed to lost the art of applying it effectively. This warrants a separate post, but we also need to understand we're no longer the only competitor, and one thing that has changed (based on my limited knowledge of history), this is the first time that a non-state actor (except for perhaps the Catholic Church) has had this much economic power based on donations from the Sunni community at large and funds from organized crime.

More later, gotta run....

[Dayuhan]

I always shocked at the number of folks in the beltway that now advocate so called smart or soft power. This implies that prior to this outstanding idea we were advocates of stupid power?

I don't think the "Smart Power" term is meant to imply that we previously used stupid power... it's a buzzword, selected for immediate impression on an audience that's only half paying attention. What they are trying to communicate would be perhaps better expressed as subtle power vs crude power, but that would be too subtle for the audience.

One problem with the formulation is that power, crude or subtle, is only as smart as those who apply it, and I see no evidence that we're any smarter than we were before. You can apply crude power without being smart, and you can also apply subtle power without being smart, and make a mess either way. Try to be too subtle without an accurate and dispassionate assessment of what you're getting into and all you do is tie yourself in a series of knots.

Perhaps I'm being too harsh, but it seems to me that our ego causes considerable problems. In military units you hear our leadership state we're better than we ever were, "we" (read I) fixed the broken army of the Vietnam era, etc. Yet a more careful reading of history may reveal that the Army we had in Vietnam (prior to the large anti-war movement that undermined our force) was superior in many ways to the Army we have today.

Ego has always been an issue. Whether today's military is or is not superior to that of the early Vietnam years would depend on a number of factors, not least of which would be how we choose to define "superior". In any event I'd argue that the change in the US position relative to the rest of the world has more to do with political and economic factors than with military ones. I'm also not convinced that America has declined economically or politically: the situation has changed because the rest of the world has gained. That's not altogether a bad thing, in fact it's in many ways a good thing, but it does change the game and we have to change with it.

Furthermore do we have more less power today as a nation (and as the West in general) than we did during the Cold War?

You could argue that the West has actually gained power... but so has the non-west, and at a greater rate. Again, this is by no means entirely a bad thing.

Diplomacy is now defined by a perverse set of political correct rules that have little to do with reality or our national interests. One simple case in point the West's reaction to Sri Lanka's victory over the Tamil separatist movement, which they won with military power. Now the West is questioning if their methods were perhaps too harsh? Of course it is much more humane to drag a conflict out for years, because militarily decisive solutions are obviously not smart or soft, just effective (at times).

I dislike political correctness as much as anyone, but we have to recognize that the days when we could simply impose a solution that suits our interests are gone forever. Now it's all about seeking solutions that serve multiple interests, though none will ever be suited perfectly. It's analogous in some ways to the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy. In a dictatorship decisions are quick, simple, and clear; in a democracy they are anything but... but in the long run, which is more stable?

Military power should need no further explanation, we can't effectively use it to deny safehaven to the enemy, or to wage a war of attrition even if we desired to (in addition to using other methods that some now call soft power, funny how much more effective soft power can be when you carry a big stick). In fairness there are good reasons in many cases (not all) that the military is constrained, but it is a fallacy in my opinion to simply assume that a more aggressive application of military power can't be effective in some situations.

All of our current fights are being conducted in other nations, and in each case we are trying to establish a government that will be seen as sovereign, not subordinate to us. This necessarily constrains our military options. If we wanted to run these places as colonies and call the shots ourselves, we'd have more options, but that would raise a new set of problems.

this is the first time that a non-state actor (except for perhaps the Catholic Church) has had this much economic power based on donations from the Sunni community at large and funds from organized crime.

I'm not convinced that AQ really wields significant economic power.

[Bill Moore]

I'm not convinced that AQ really wields significant economic power.

The fact that non-state actors are supporting (in some cases with State support) effective insurgencies, NGOs that provide medical care and preach violent jihad (it's working, so it is influence, thus power), and build their version of schools (and pay for students around the world to attend them) to further mobilize the 1.3 billion Sunni Umna clearly indicates that non-state actors have considerable economic power. Economic power isn't based on GDP, it based on how much influence you have over the relevant audience with the money you do have. In other words, economic power is not always economic might (if you're constrained from spending your money effectively, it doesn't matter), economic power is the ability to wield your economy capability (whether is $2mill or $2bill) in a way that "influences" the target audience to conform to your desires.

The other side of the coin is that our state based economic power centers are more vulnerable to attack than non-state economic centers of gravity. On the other hand, with the exception of freezing some bank accounts, their sources of economic might through organized crime, world wide donations through informal channels, etc. are much harder to target effectively. I'm a supporter of the argument that non-state actor indirect attacks on our economy (actions that cause us to spend, spend, spend in response) may not be sustainable, but that is open to debate. To avoid stupid spending where we get no return on our investment we need to develop a smart strategy (different than so called smart power).

I don't think the "Smart Power" term is meant to imply that we previously used stupid power... it's a buzzword

You made my point, it is nothing new, just another buzzword; however, the implication is clear, military power is stupid and it won't work. Those who study these matters have always known there are some problems where the military is the correct response and other cases they're simply a supporting arm if they're a player at all. As you look throughout our history you can find several examples of so called smart power. Smart power could actually mean something, it could mean developing our human capital with education, but I'm off on another subject....

In any event I'd argue that the change in the US position relative to the rest of the world has more to do with political and economic factors than with military ones.

No doubt that is true, furthermore we have new threats that our Cold War political-military model is not ideally postured to deal with; however, (and this may not be your intent) you can't separate military power from the evolving economic and political environment, since both define (and constantly redefine) how military power can be employed. My argument that our current (post cold war era) views has severely constrained the military to the point that even if the administration desires a military solution it is not possible. Keep in mind that can change very rapidly, since we all know the last World War (hell, the last war ever according to some) was WWI. We may have to get mean again, and if we do the political environment will probably change to allow that.

I dislike political correctness as much as anyone, but we have to recognize that the days when we could simply impose a solution that suits our interests are gone forever.

I think you missed the mark on this one, due to political correctness we attempt to impose what are perceived as hostile Western solutions that suit our views (not necessarily our interests). If we would wake up and realize we can't always impose our views upon others (unless we're willing to do so by force), then we'll develop more realistic policies. I think we may agree on this one?

[Dayuhan]

The fact that non-state actors are supporting (in some cases with State support) effective insurgencies, NGOs that provide medical care and preach violent jihad (it's working, so it is influence, thus power), and build their version of schools (and pay for students around the world to attend them) to further mobilize the 1.3 billion Sunni Umna clearly indicates that non-state actors have considerable economic power.

I wouldn't call that economic power, I'd call it the effective application of limited economic resources to the development of ideological power. Semantic difference really, two descriptions of the same phenomenon.

The other side of the coin is that our state based economic power centers are more vulnerable to attack than non-state economic centers of gravity.

Here I'd say that our task is less to attack an economic center of gravity than an ideological center of gravity. if the ideology is effectively undermined and loses its appeal, the economic resources dry up. Since the economic needs of jihad are really quite modest it will be difficult to close them off effectively.

Those who study these matters have always known there are some problems where the military is the correct response and other cases they're simply a supporting arm if they're a player at all. As you look throughout our history you can find several examples of so called smart power. Smart power could actually mean something, it could mean developing our human capital with education, but I'm off on another subject....

To me the danger of the "smart power" construct lies in the assumption that since reliance on military power alone is seen within this construct as "not smart", any introduction of non-military elements will automatically make our use of power "smart". This is completely fallacious: any type of power and any combination of types of power can be used stupidly. There is no smart ratio of hard to soft power that applies universally. Smartness requires a realistic assessment of a problem and the selection of appropriate tools to solve that problem. Some problems may require all hard power, sopme all soft, some a blend, but in any case the outcome is only smart if it represents a realistic solution to the problem, based on an honest, detailed assessment devoid of ideological preconceptions.

I think you missed the mark on this one, due to political correctness we attempt to impose what are perceived as hostile Western solutions that suit our views (not necessarily our interests). If we would wake up and realize we can't always impose our views upon others (unless we're willing to do so by force), then we'll develop more realistic policies. I think we may agree on this one?

Certainly we can agree that realism is desirable, and that ideology and preconception - politically correct or otherwise - generally obstruct realism. I'm sure we'd find a thing or two to disagree about as well, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

[J. Robert DuBois]

Gentlemen, the troublemaker is back. I've been all over Afghanistan the past few weeks, usually with very poor or no bandwidth. Thanks to heavier pipes at tonight's base, I am able to re-enter the discussion.

Firstly, I want to thank everyone who's participating in the controversy. This much energy indicates that we're all focused on moving ahead in building security with maximum effectiveness; the argument seems to be about defining what "effective" means for each one. I genuinely respect each one of you for your deep base of experience and dedication to stopping bad guys. With every challenge, my own grasp of Applied Smart Power grows.

The biggest misunderstanding that's coming up repeatedly is the notion that, if we're only "beginning to use smart power" now, we're condemning all our past national efforts as "stupid". Alternatively, some are supposing that "smart power" means other than violent action. That's also off base. Smart Power is about using the most effective tool or combination of tools on a case-by-case basis. It's like our practical application in the SEAL Teams: learn many, many tools, then use what works according to the situation. (I'm pleased to report that, in addition to maintaining the reputation as consummate life-takers, many of my former Teammates are proving to be among the most effective at tribal engagements and developing invaluable relationships with local leaders in Iraq.)

The most useful paraphrase for what I call "applied" smart power so far is from Dayuhan. Ironically, even though he's expertly defining what I'm advocating, I believe his post is in the form of a criticism against the concept of smart power:

To me the danger of the "smart power" construct lies in the assumption that since reliance on military power alone is seen within this construct as "not smart", any introduction of non-military elements will automatically make our use of power "smart". This is completely fallacious: any type of power and any combination of types of power can be used stupidly. There is no smart ratio of hard to soft power that applies universally. Smartness requires a realistic assessment of a problem and the selection of appropriate tools to solve that problem. Some problems may require all hard power, some all soft, some a blend, but in any case the outcome is only smart if it represents a realistic solution to the problem, based on an honest, detailed assessment devoid of ideological preconceptions.

So that's it. What I'm expressing from immediate, ground truth experience in theater is that not enough attention is being given to the human needs of thousands of non-hostiles in OIF and OEF. Of course we have to shoot hostiles. Of course gate sentries have to use lethal force to stop a suicide bomber. But ignoring the crises of unemployment, for just one example, IS in fact stupid power.

Even a twenty-year-old local kid at Kandahar knows the source of much of what we're still fighting about in this forum. I asked him why, despite abuse and atrocities such as the recent marketplace bombing, the Taliban enjoy enough active or passive support to resist the incredible might of the US military. He didn't even pause for a second, but just answered directly: "Because men don't have jobs."

Military-age males, pissed and ashamed that they can't provide for a family, eventually say Screw It, resign themselves to the only game in town, and help the Taliban because they need money.

Think about it: every adult male reading this, whether you're a seven-foot-tall Dutchman from Amsterdam or a four-foot-tall pygmy from the rain forest, shares the identical masculine needs for respect and dignity. You require self respect. I mean, seriously, a quick glance at some of our inflated egos in print should suffice to prove this point.

As an edifying exercise, put yourself in the shoes of one of the thousands of neutral men in these provinces with no income, sick and hungry children, and only a single, solitary option for making a few bucks - the Taliban. A desperate man can easily rationalize that putting a device by the side of a road does not constitute deliberate violence against the Americans. "All I did is dig a hole, and the fundamentalists gave me $200 to live on for a month. Now my daughter can get the medicine for her dysentery."

Put foreign strangers at risk of possible harm, or lose your little girl? Tell me which you would choose. Yes, there is a real thing called stupid power. It lies in an unwillingness to consider all relevant facts in a matter that directly endangers me and my family.

By the way, I've been quoted in Homeland Security Today magazine. The piece on the recent Saudi suicide bomber is page 4 at: http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/Homelan.../November2009/

[J. Robert DuBois]

Gents, one factor that may be clouding the issue is that I'm not writing about "soft" power, which is a perfectly necessary part of improved security, but about "smart" power (balancing hard and soft).

The title's misleading because we had to break the original thread, and the new one was named from memory and can't be changed. Keep in mind that it should be "Applied Smart Power from a SEAL", to put the discussion in accurate context.

[MikeF]

Rob,

I checked out your website, and I dig it. You're feeling my mojo. I'm halfway through an essay for SWJ entitled "Social Entrepreneurs and Small Wars." Be on the lookout.

Mike

[slapout9]

Rob,

I checked out your website, and I dig it. You're feeling my mojo. I'm halfway through an essay for SWJ entitled "Social Entrepreneurs and Small Wars." Be on the lookout.

Mike

Where is the link to the website

[MikeF]

Where is the link to the website

Slap

His first post.

ConflictInContext.org or try http://conflictincontext.wordpress.com/ and PowerfulPeace.net or http://powerfulpeace.net/

And BTW, if you didn't get the hint, I gotta a final draft for peer-review headed your way before I submit it for publication.

Mike

[J. Robert DuBois]

Rob,

I checked out your website, and I dig it. You're feeling my mojo. I'm halfway through an essay for SWJ entitled "Social Entrepreneurs and Small Wars." Be on the lookout.

Mike

Thanks much for the boost, Mike.

You know, I've got about a million pieces just about ready for prime time. Who do we talk to about publishing in the Journal?

[MikeF]

Thanks much for the boost, Mike.

You know, I've got about a million pieces just about ready for prime time. Who do we talk to about publishing in the Journal?

Go here and read through the instructions. There's a link to submit. Dave Dillege and others will peer-review your content and publish if it's good. If you want others to give a pre-read, I'd be happy to help. Send me a PM and we can exchange email addresses.

I'm glad your writing. More professionals and practisioners need to.

[Firn]

I carried for a long time a crazy idea, taken out of Keynes Magnus Opus:

If--for whatever reason--the rate of interest cannot fall as fast as the marginal efficiency of capital would fall with a rate of accumulation corresponding to what the community would choose to save at a rate of interest equal to the marginal efficiency of capital in conditions of full employment, then even a diversion of the desire to hold wealth towards assets, which will in fact yield no economic fruits whatever, will increase economic well-being. In so far as millionaires find their satisfaction in building mighty mansions to contain their bodies when alive and pyramids to shelter them after death, or, repenting of their sins, erect cathedrals and endow monasteries or foreign missions, the day when abundance of capital will interfere with abundance of output may be postponed. "To dig holes in the ground," paid for out of savings, will increase, not only employment, but the real national dividend of useful goods and services. It is not reasonable, however, that a sensible community should be content to remain dependent on such fortuitous and often wasteful mitigations when once we understand the influences upon which effective demand depends.

In Afghanistan we have the trouble that men out of work are for understandable reasons easy to recruit to help or fight for the enemy, as Rob said. There has been and there still should be a lot of money around to invest into Afghanistan. There are many excellent projects around, but for a great many reasons they are difficult to implement. But I reckon that the need for good planning and oversight so as to not squander the money does greatly reduce the speed in which things are built and thus the money goes into pockets. So even inefficient and partly questionable yet very laborious activities as pickaxing roads through a valley or paying villagers to pile up walls could do a great deal of good by primary and secundary effects.

First it puts people at work and helps them to bring something home. Secondly they are less likely to support directly the enemy. With the money they earn they can consume what they think to need most. This stimulates the local economy by bringing in earned money and lessening the security threat. Of course this all sounds simple and is still is difficult to do. It will certainly also foster corruption and a host of other problems like inflation but it might be a part of a sensible approach for the most pressing problems. Just thinking as a whole like a drunken sailor and not like an accountant might actually help.


Firn

[J. Robert DuBois]

Firn,

I support your assertion that we can defeat many ills with one well-placed investment. In fact, I've lifted the below suggestion from the April piece from my "Applied Smart Power" blog, http://conflictincontext.wordpress.com/ and the April article is: http://conflictincontext.wordpress.com/tag/iraq/ It speaks to the holistic problem - and holistic solution - facing us in OIF and OEF.

And yes - it's simplistic. I'm not naive, and I know that some of our invested funds would be skimmed. Some would even be diverted to insurgent uses...but doing something in this direction, and reaping the rewards, makes it worth the cost:

----------------
“I won’t make my wife a prostitute.”

The man quoted is one of thousands of unemployed Iraqi men, living in pathetic conditions through no fault of his own. He needs work, because his family needs food. His options are simple: 1) acquire gainful employment; 2) put his wife to work on her back with no other marketable skills; 3) emplace an improvised explosive device by the side of a road to earn the freelance insurgent “supporter” rate of $150 – and thus feed his family for a month.

On point 1, where there is nearly 30% unemployment (70% in some areas, and 80% for women), he has no opportunities. On point 2, he has taken a stand. Point 3, then, is the only avenue remaining. When our soldier is struck by that IED, what will our response be? Appropriately, we will capture or kill this now-valid “target”, this pitiful actor at the end of his rope, this family’s only possible breadwinner…greatly worsening the lot of a woman and children already in desperate need.

The neighbors won’t fail to notice how this plays out.

For years I have written and spoken about the urgent need for those of us with dominant power to look through the eyes of and engage other populations and individuals as a higher way to reduce the conflict threatening all sides. These struggles will be described in many forms in upcoming Conflict in Context posts, from passive-aggressive hassles around the workplace to taking a much-unwanted knife in the ribs.

Let me offer just one highly preferable alternative to killing the man who puts out a bomb to kill an American to earn $150 to give his daughter some food: let’s give him $300. That’s right; let’s double his income, giving him a one-time, good-deal payout of $300 to care for his family as he chooses.

Next month, let’s offer him the same $300 – only this time, let’s attach a string: he has to sit through vocational rehabilitation classes to learn a trade like electrical work. Heaven knows, this country is in desperate need of qualified electricians to begin patching together a safe and reliable infrastructure!

The third month, let’s attach another string to his $300: let’s make him accompany an electrician as an apprentice, reinforcing the lessons he learned in class.

His fourth month, and every month afterward, we’ll require him to earn his $300 by working as an instructor-electrician and taking out a new apprentice coming up through the same program.

The fifth month, we split the salary cost 50/50 with the Iraqi government and begin to empower it to take over this domestic responsibility.

Within half a year, the Iraqi government is bearing the entire cost of these salaries in exchange for greatly-improved public power distribution and a huge reduction in injuries caused by faulty wiring. No American soldier was killed by the men in this program, because they receive twice the income for a much safer avocation and discover self-respect. No wife is pimped, no child is hungry, and the rebuilding of a society is in full swing.

How do the costs work out? According to conservative estimates, the US government pays more than ten billion dollars a month to run the war in Iraq. If we round down for argument’s sake to nine billion, this rate could pay for thirty million work-study program participants.

There aren’t even thirty million Iraqis in the whole country!

So let’s divert one thousandth of that 9 billion dollars, and we can begin rebuilding the nation with 30,000 men. Or take just one ten-thousandth (0.001%), and start with only 3,000. That’s 3,000 families restored – 3,000 potential bombers eliminated – 3,000 less chances for our soldier to be torn apart. Imagine where this might take us.

Where would we find less than a million dollars to spare? Well, you can start by cutting out the Baskin-Robbins cart here at my dining facility. It is a war, after all. My comrades and I will find some way to bravely carry on without it.

Real, unlimited solutions in the unlimited world of conflict are within reach, if we are willing to use imagination, daring, and the vast reservoir of experience held by security professionals who refuse to step into the box.

[slapout9]

Slap

His first post.

ConflictInContext.org and PowerfulPeace.net

And BTW, if you didn't get the hint, I gotta a final draft for peer-review headed your way before I submit it for publication.

Mike

Ahhhh.....I knew that I was just checking.

I will be looking for your article.

[Firn]

Firn,

I support your assertion that we can defeat many ills with one well-placed investment. In fact, I've lifted the below suggestion from the April piece from my "Applied Smart Power" blog, http://conflictincontext.wordpress.com/ and the April article is: http://conflictincontext.wordpress.com/tag/iraq/ It speaks to the holistic problem - and holistic solution - facing us in OIF and OEF.

And yes - it's simplistic. I'm not naive, and I know that some of our invested funds would be skimmed. Some would even be diverted to insurgent uses...but doing something in this direction, and reaping the rewards, makes it worth the cost:

I'm also pretty sure that likely the majority of the investments will be skimmed. I'm even convinced that we might become the laughing stock of the locals for being naive when paying for such works and courses. It will become an accountant's worst nightmare and the press might blast it and ask how one can blow the taxpayer's money in such a stupid way. But it might just work as intended and play an important part in our overall effort.

So let’s divert one thousandth of that 9 billion dollars, and we can begin rebuilding the nation with 30,000 men. Or take just one ten-thousandth (0.001%), and start with only 3,000. That’s 3,000 families restored – 3,000 potential bombers eliminated – 3,000 less chances for our soldier to be torn apart. Imagine where this might take us.

Where would we find less than a million dollars to spare? Well, you can start by cutting out the Baskin-Robbins cart here at my dining facility. It is a war, after all. My comrades and I will find some way to bravely carry on without it.

Real, unlimited solutions in the unlimited world of conflict are within reach, if we are willing to use imagination, daring, and the vast reservoir of experience held by security professionals who refuse to step into the box.

You put that better in words than me. I would only stress that the intent is not to spend wisely, but to get as much people from the streets and out of the bomb making garages and giving them money which they can spend as they think is best. The secondary effects should help to create the meaningful jobs by stimulating consumer demand.

All in all it is clear that we should try to do directly something good with the money, like building the famous schools and try to plan and oversight it. But the stress should be on spend and not control, because the latter can greatly reduce the impetus of the former. In such cases we should all try to follow the instinct of our inner drunken sailor. I'm pretty sure we all can

Firn

[Dayuhan]

The most useful paraphrase for what I call "applied" smart power so far is from Dayuhan. Ironically, even though he's expertly defining what I'm advocating, I believe his post is in the form of a criticism against the concept of smart power

I should hasten to say that I've nothing against the idea of "smart power"... who could possibly be critical of smartness? I do have concerns about the widespread use of a term, and establishment of a goal, that is so loosely defined and so thoroughly subject to varying interpretation. It is way too easy for such terms to degenerate into meaningless buzzwords: it's easy to use the term and it sounds great in a sound bite, but it's a whole lot harder to determine what exact combination of instruments, in any given circumstance, will constitute smartness.

Another problem is that what any given individual thinks is "smart" at any given time is likely to be determined by pre-existing ideas and prejudices, rather than by any objective criteria. It is very easy for the quest for smartness to devolve into a competition between various prejudices and agendas.

You can say "we need smart power" or "we need effective solutions tailored to the specific problems at hand" or you could say any number of other things, and all would be correct... but I'm not convinced that saying the words brings us closer to accomplishing the goals. That's especially true when the words are being said by people with only a few years on the ground in the environment in question - or even less - and a completely insufficient understanding of what they are attempting to influence.

Too often I've seen foreigners, and most particularly Americans, walk into troubled countries, look around in a circle, instantly identify "the problem", and dive into a marvelously energetic but generally disastrous attempt at a solution. The problem-solving orientation is not entirely a bad thing, but misapplied, or based on assumptions, preconceptions, or excessively rapid deductions it can do enormous damage.

It is certainly true that economic stagnation and unemployment contribute to conflict, in Afghanistan and in many other places. It is true that many conflicts could be ended if economies could be fixed. Unfortunately, fixing an economy is as difficult, complex, and time-consuming as winning a war, often more so, and anyone familiar with development projects around the world will know that ill-considered or hasty efforts at economic development can have all manner of unintended consequences, many of them not good at all.

It is good to be smart, and good to seek smart power. This is easy to say, just like it's easy to say that "security" or "economic development" or "empowering the people" or "self-determination" etc etc are desirable goals. Of course they are desirable goals, this is not news. The problem is figuring how to achieve those goals, and I'm not sure talking about smartness will make us any more effective at that.

[J. Robert DuBois]

Gents,

It's been nearly a year since my last breath in this forum. After finishing the Afghanistan tour I returned to DC...and straight into the cyclone of writing, speaking and managing stuff. How is it that we can find more time to discuss important matters like this when we're at war than when we're nestled snug in our own beds Stateside?

"Applied" smart power has come much clearer since our last Autumn swirl. Now I'll be able to answer the questions and express the message in a more satisfactory way for anyone hoping to understand it. There won't be much meat in this particular posting, but I attended the "Cutting the Fuse" Congressional gathering with Steve Clemons yesterday and in searching out news of it tonight I stumbled happily back into SWC. More will follow.

(You can see the outline for this conference at: http://www.newamerica.net/events/2010/cutting_the_fuse)

Put simply - applied smart power (ASP) is like a micro version of the macro concept of "smart power." Smart power is Joseph Nye's international relations theory that coercion and attraction, or hard and soft power, have to be balanced more effectively between states in order to promote cooperation and prevent inadvertent antagonism (inviting unnecessary violence) through excess force.

"Applied" smart power, then, is that aspect of engagement many of us in the Council have already practiced over many continents and many decades - it's the understanding that comes from an American named Rob or a Brit named Andy working side-by-side with a local guy named Ahmet or Sasha or Burhan, building understanding with that person himself, and having that knowledge trickle up toward countrymen...and policy makers. Applying smart power means ratcheting international theory down to become interpersonal activity.

And yet, what is one of the more common complaints from those of us serving in the mud or sand close to our partners? "Those conventional guys back home/in HQ just don't get it! We are screwing up this fight if the locals can't trust us." We see firsthand how counterproductive certain TTPs or SOPs or policies can be in the big picture of mission accomplishment.

To be fair to critics of ASP, this is not easily distilled down to metrics, any more than a federal judge can define pornography...he just "knows it" when he sees it. However, if you think about many of the higher functions of our peculiar race (the humans) like great art, love, or wisdom, they all tend to be a lot harder to define. Any monkey with a paint-by-numbers canvas can paint a picture, but it ain't art without a master behind the brush.

Likewise, any monkey with a gun can shoot when he feels threatened...but a warrior can discern whether that shooting might do him more harm than good.

That's where this discussion is coming from. I was extremely happy to hear similar balance-hard-and-soft points coming from many of yesterday's speakers, including Congressman Brian Baird, Governor Thomas Kean (if you listened to CSPAN you heard my Q&A with both of them) and of course Steve, Bob Pape and Peter Bergen. There is a virtual "surge" of thinking coming, which is meeting in the middle and agreeing with me that no one "side" can have the only right approach. There is a finer solution somewhere amidst the myriad opinions, which unfortunately take on a life of their own (through the magic of personal ego wars) and become the issue instead of addressing the issue.

As threatened earlier, more will follow. Please feel free to begin attacking at your earliest convenience.

By the way, if you aren't too numbed by this overview of ASP yet, I would encourage you to review some illustrative articles at what I consider the finest blog in the ether, PowerfulPeace.net. Coincidentally, I happen to write Powerful Peace, but I like to think I'd consider it the finest even if someone else wrote it.

- Rob

[J. Robert DuBois]

You can say "we need smart power" or "we need effective solutions tailored to the specific problems at hand" or you could say any number of other things, and all would be correct... but I'm not convinced that saying the words brings us closer to accomplishing the goals. That's especially true when the words are being said by people with only a few years on the ground in the environment in question - or even less - and a completely insufficient understanding of what they are attempting to influence.

Too often I've seen foreigners, and most particularly Americans, walk into troubled countries, look around in a circle, instantly identify "the problem", and dive into a marvelously energetic but generally disastrous attempt at a solution. The problem-solving orientation is not entirely a bad thing, but misapplied, or based on assumptions, preconceptions, or excessively rapid deductions it can do enormous damage.

It is certainly true that economic stagnation and unemployment contribute to conflict, in Afghanistan and in many other places. It is true that many conflicts could be ended if economies could be fixed. Unfortunately, fixing an economy is as difficult, complex, and time-consuming as winning a war, often more so....

Dayuhan,

Is it fair for me to Reply to your well-considered note a full eleven months after you wrote it? This feels a bit like the pace of exchanging letters from war during the 18th century.

In any case, I just have to say how very closely your statements land to what it is I'm trying to say. I consider myself at fault if my message isn't coming through, but I just have to keep looking at your challenges to my assertions to find the better way to say it!

From your paragraph 1, above, you suggest that we could say, "We need effective solutions tailored...." That's absolutely true. We could - and should - say that. Then you continue that saying it won't bring us closer to accomplishing the goals. Again, I agree. That's why applied smart power (ASP) has the word "applied" built into it. We have to apply what we understand, not just form committees to debate whether we should form a committee to explore the theories.

The first flows into the second paragraph with regard to the disastrous results possible when Americans barge into a crisis situation with inadequate understanding of the ground truth and inject best intentions that worsen the crisis. Again-again, I agree. It has been the height of self-destructive arrogance to blast in and scrunch a one-size-fits-all American (or British, in centuries past) paradigm onto an unexamined local cultural reality. That's why ASP demands understanding all cultures in play. Understanding the host populations is the only way to have any realistic hope of understanding the problems and thus comprehending possible solutions.

ASP doesn't force solutions into locals' mouths, it listens carefully to those locals' mouths before there can be even the slightest chance of making a meaningful contribution.

I have to quote the final comment from above: "Unfortunately, fixing an economy is as difficult, complex, and time-consuming as winning a war, often more so...."

Let's be coldly objective about the two options described. Let's take the optimistic view that fixing an economy costs exactly the same as winning a war. Which provides the greater value in the end?

We can "win" a war and end up with a shattered economy that implodes the week after we win and fly back to Los Angeles. The result is plainly lose-lose: we again face the threat of radicals streaming out of the freshly-crumbled society and spend the money all over again to win again. Or we can fix an economy and empower the legitimate (an entirely different subject for debate!) government to easily subdue and isolate the enemy force.

In such simple terms, it's painfully clear where the better investment is. It would even be justified to spend more for such a worthy outcome, much like the choice I made this week to spend extra for organic marinara sauce. We invest in things that will provide a greater return. So many of us from the military forces lean toward a forceful solution to problems without taking the moment to consider what our actual best case scenario will be down the line.

I'm not squeamish about the usefulness of killing. Few SEALs would get very far if they came on as conscientious objectors. The question simply isn't on whether to use violence, but where and how much. We have to begin to take the long view and combine it with a selfish view: "What's in it for me...in the long term?"