Motivation vs. causation

[davidbfpo]

Bob's use of causation and motivation is far easier for the non-academic and non-specialists to follow IMHO. Other papers I have read are far more complex, partly as they try to cover all civil conflicts / terrorism / political violence. Maybe it is a marketing device, I think not. Nor does the failure of good governance and related points diminish looking at conflicts through causation and motivation.

[jmm99]

This comment from Slap:

I say a cause is nothing more than a large group of people with a common motive. It turns into an insurgency/revolution when it reaches a certain tipping point as to the total number of people involved.

got me thinking. What I come up with is that we use the same word "cause" to mean two quite different things:

1. In one sense, we look at "cause" and "effect" based on a set of more or less objective facts: e.g., what factors "caused" the accident. Those factors span a spectrum from the most "proximate" to the most remote ("but for causation", "ultimate causation" - but for a nail, the kingdom was lost). In the accident case, we focus on the more proximate causes and the extent to which each of them contributed to the accident in assessing comparative fault (where the motivations of the parties does come into play). In this rather inexact form of art, the jury finds A, X%; B, Y%; C, Z% at fault and awards damages accordingly. And, certainly, folks use a similar process to consider the "causes" of an insurgency.

2. In another sense, we look at "cause" not with respect to effect, but as one or more of the "Causes" that appear in the "Narratives" of the revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries. Each of those "Causes" may or may not have a basis in a "cause" that we find objectively (Meaning 1). Each of them does, however, have a basis in the perceptions and motives of the populace as they view their individual situations. As to those "Causes", "Motives" are very much intermixed and crucial to the feedback process which frames the "Narrative" (whether revolutionary or counter-revolutionary). That is the basis for Mao's "from the people, to the people", where the "Narrative" is taken in raw form from the People, shaped by the Party, and then returned to the People, who reshape it in a continued "chicken & egg" scenario. The "Narrative" (as one of the factors) probably will have an effect on the outcome of the insurgency - and, hence, would be a "cause".

To sum the distinctions in blunt terms: People die because of a "cause"; people die for a "Cause".

-------------------------------
This continuation is somewhat thinking out loud; although the thoughts have occured to me before.

In Southeast Asia, we can look at four countries: Indochina, Malaya, Indonesia and the Philippines. As to them, we can accept some common factors:

1. All were feudal (as the Marxists used that term) and colonial, pre-WWII.

2. All were occupied by the Japanese during WWII (showing the people that an Asian military could defeat Western militaries).

3. During WWII, nationalist movements were strengthened.

4. At the end of WWII, the colonial powers returned (length of stay varied).

5. After WWII, insurgencies developed in all (in Indochina and Indonesia, we have I and II cases).

We could (simplistically, IMO) look at WWII as the "cause" of those insurgencies and that the "Causes" were "anti-feudalism" and "anti-colonialism". There is some truth in that, but the realities were more complex.

In considering those six insurgencies (Indochina I & II, Malaya, Indonesia I & II, the Philippines), Bill Pomeroy (CPUSA author and special operator) left us with some good advice in his Guerrilla Warfare & Marxism (1968, International Publishers, the CPUSA bookstore - book no longer in catalog), p.200:

The theory that there is an "Asian model" of contemporary guerrilla liberation struggles (it is assumed to be patterned on the Chinese experience) breaks down with a close examination of each struggle. This has been pointed out in the Introduction, but it needs to be stressed further that liberation movements in the region have been variegated, each with its own historical roots, deriving from the peculiar nature of the colonial system in each colony, and each pursuing its own course of development.

With that caveat in mind, considering the "Causes" expressed in the "Narratives" (both revolutionary and counter-revolutionary) in each of these six instances gains some understanding as to one factor (among many) that made each of them different from the others, in both development and outcomes. That is an exercise that I've not yet completed.

Regards

Mike

[slapout9]

jmm99, to me all problems start at the level of either nature made or man made. Nature..... Tornado's,Hurricanes,etc. vs. Man made.... Crimes and Wars. Man made requires Active Agency......I think that is the legal term,i.e. guns do not kill people until a human (Active Agent) picks it up and shoots somebody.

So for an insurgency to happen requires a motivated person (Active Agent) to motivate other humans to join with him/her to fight for the common motive which becomes a United Common Cause.

[jmm99]

agree with this:''

from Slap
So for an insurgency to happen requires a motivated person (Active Agent) to motivate other humans to join with him/her to fight for the common motive which becomes a United Common Cause.

So, then the questions are: whether we look for the factors that motivated the Active Actor (and those who join); how far back we should go in looking for them; and whether we should then try to fix them ?

Regards

Mike

[slapout9]

Originally Posted by jmm99

So, then the questions are: whether we look for the factors that motivated the Active Actor (and those who join); how far back we should go in looking for them; and whether we should then try to fix them ?

Regards

Mike

I would go back as far as practical until you come to the factor and it will be a person or persons ,that started it. I don't know if you should fix them or just shoot them

PS a good principle for Law to. Don't ask what you were fighting about.....ask WHO started it. My 2 cents.

[Bob's World]

Originally Posted by slapout9

I say a cause is nothing more than a large group of people with a common motive. It turns into an insurgency/revolution when it reaches a certain tipping point as to the total number of people involved.

But what an organization's "Cause" is is a very different thing from what the "causation" for a conflict is.

For an example, I listed above some aspects of what I believe contributed to causation for the American insurgency against Great Britain. Their cause however, was probably best summed up in one word:

Independence


I think it is very important to sort out the differences between causation, motivation, and cause when addressing an insurgency. By putting these very different things into the correct boxes, one can then begin to focus their efforts either as the counterinsurgent, or insurpport of the counterinsurgent, for best effect.

Most people I meet dump them all into one box, like a the way a typical guy dumps all his clothes into the washer. Sure, they get "washed", but it isn't particularly effective.

[Bob's World]

Mike,

Thanks for the legal assist. That is exactly what I was trying to get at in clarifying the difference between cause and causation. Its unfortunate the words are so similar inconstruction, becuase the meanings in application are very different indeed.

Bob

[jmm99]

as to this:

from BW; [ ]s by JMM
I think it is very important to sort out the differences between causation [small "c" "cause"], motivation, and cause [cap "C" "Cause"] when addressing an insurgency. By putting these very different things into the correct boxes, one can then begin to focus their efforts either as the counterinsurgent, or in support of the counterinsurgent, for best effect.

but I really am cut to the quick by your criticism of my favored approach to washing clothes:

from BW
Most people I meet dump them all into one box, like a the way a typical guy dumps all his clothes into the washer. Sure, they get "washed", but it isn't particularly effective.

Who cares if the underwear turns pink & the red sweatshirt is now a darker shade of pink - some people like that.

Cheers

Mike

PS: Always happy to assist a fellow legal beagle, who is now doing more important work.

[slapout9]

Originally Posted by Bob's World

But what an organization's "Cause" is is a very different thing from what the "causation" for a conflict is.

For an example, I listed above some aspects of what I believe contributed to causation for the American insurgency against Great Britain. Their cause however, was probably best summed up in one word:

Independence


I think it is very important to sort out the differences between causation, motivation, and cause when addressing an insurgency. By putting these very different things into the correct boxes, one can then begin to focus their efforts either as the counterinsurgent, or insurpport of the counterinsurgent, for best effect.

Most people I meet dump them all into one box, like a the way a typical guy dumps all his clothes into the washer. Sure, they get "washed", but it isn't particularly effective.

I would say it is Independence from Person(s) Acting as Tyrant(s).

[William F. Owen]

So let me get this right...

a.) War = the setting forth of Policy/politics via violent means, and the interactions that are inherent to that?

b.) Strategy = the use of force to get things done - in terms of the military contribution to strategy - and the adaptations that flow from the passion, reason and chance that are inherent to the use of force?

....thinking I read this somewhere else before......

I think in the case of Hitler, Oliver Cromwell, Napoleon, the Tsarist White Russians and Julius Caesar, folks fought very hard and in great numbers to ensure they had a tyrant in control of their lives - because they liked the idea of the stability that a single leader brought and did not like the idea of a ultimately "corrupt" democratic process. Funny that.

[marct]

Originally Posted by jmm99

What I come up with is that we use the same word "cause" to mean two quite different things:

1. In one sense, we look at "cause" and "effect" based on a set of more or less objective facts: e.g., what factors "caused" the accident. Those factors span a spectrum from the most "proximate" to the most remote ("but for causation", "ultimate causation" - but for a nail, the kingdom was lost). In the accident case, we focus on the more proximate causes and the extent to which each of them contributed to the accident in assessing comparative fault (where the motivations of the parties does come into play). In this rather inexact form of art, the jury finds A, X%; B, Y%; C, Z% at fault and awards damages accordingly. And, certainly, folks use a similar process to consider the "causes" of an insurgency.

2. In another sense, we look at "cause" not with respect to effect, but as one or more of the "Causes" that appear in the "Narratives" of the revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries. Each of those "Causes" may or may not have a basis in a "cause" that we find objectively (Meaning 1). Each of them does, however, have a basis in the perceptions and motives of the populace as they view their individual situations. As to those "Causes", "Motives" are very much intermixed and crucial to the feedback process which frames the "Narrative" (whether revolutionary or counter-revolutionary). That is the basis for Mao's "from the people, to the people", where the "Narrative" is taken in raw form from the People, shaped by the Party, and then returned to the People, who reshape it in a continued "chicken & egg" scenario. The "Narrative" (as one of the factors) probably will have an effect on the outcome of the insurgency - and, hence, would be a "cause".

To sum the distinctions in blunt terms: People die because of a "cause"; people die for a "Cause".

You know, Mike, I really like this. Personally, I would go one step further and point out that, barring "natural" events (tornados, hurricanes, etc.), we as a species don't "know" about the first category in any really objective sense, only inter-subjectively. This gets us to the point that we cannot ascribe cause and effect relationships or factors unless we have a knowledge system, a "narrative" if you will, of how reality is constructed.

"Cause and effect" is, really, just another term for a specific type of relationship (an "if-then" one). But if we say that X causes Y (or a percentage of it), then we have to have at least a rough, inter-subjective agreement on what constitute X and Y. The process of getting that agreement, which we could call "indoctrination", "enculturation", "radicalization" or any other similar concept pertaining to the adoption of one symbol system by a person, carries with it its own "causal" logic (i.e. implied relationships). Even the case of "natural events" is not privileged as a natural/universal category with absolute membership, since many systems ascribe them to the operation of supernatural entities (Katrina as the curse of God, Haiti as punishment for signing a pact with the Devil, etc.).

When you say

Originally Posted by jmm99

The "Narrative" (as one of the factors) probably will have an effect on the outcome of the insurgency - and, hence, would be a "cause".

I think you are spot on. In fact, I don't think you go far enough with its implications. Narratives structure lived, day-to-day experiences by providing both expressive and explanatory means for people to comprehend these experiences; they are the "interpretive schemas" I keep talking about. Where we get a really interesting "convergence" is between ideological and religious narratives which, basically, cover the same ground area by offering sometimes complementary, sometimes antithetical schemas.

Cheers,

Marc

[slapout9]

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

So let me get this right...

a.) War = the setting forth of Policy/politics via violent means, and the interactions that are inherent to that?

b.) Strategy = the use of force to get things done - in terms of the military contribution to strategy - and the adaptations that flow from the passion, reason and chance that are inherent to the use of force?

....thinking I read this somewhere else before......

I think in the case of Hitler, Oliver Cromwell, Napoleon, the Tsarist White Russians and Julius Caesar, folks fought very hard and in great numbers to ensure they had a tyrant in control of their lives - because they liked the idea of the stability that a single leader brought and did not like the idea of a ultimately "corrupt" democratic process. Funny that.

Sorta, except we (US) wanted the right to choose our own Tyrant not use somebody elses.

[jmm99]

I'm happy to see that the Local Governance-Local Populace Section of the Ad Hoc SWC Civil Affairs Team (created by Steve the Surfer - ) is on the same page.

Admittedly, I could have gone further with Causation (both with multiplicity of causes and their proximity to the material situation - and which ultimate causes are "Acts of God" and which are "Acts of Man"). Been there and done that to some extent with civil litigation (where we look more to multiple causes and attribution of comparative fault than in criminal litigation, where its nature requires simpler solutions).

As you say:

....we as a species don't "know" about the first category in any really objective sense, only inter-subjectively.

and we get into a process similar to a Thomist proof of God taught to me by my mother (she taught RC religion). Fine for a matter of belief (after all, Credo means "I believe"), but not really a matter of objective knowledge (Scio = "I know").

-----------------------
So, as a practitioner, I'd rather focus on the "Causes" in the respective "Narratives" - and how those Narratives meet the realities of the situational environment. The best theoretical Narrative in the world will fall on its tail if it is not implemented on the ground at the local level (whether urban or rural).

Yes, I could have gone into "Causes" and the "Narratives" further - and suggested a study program (see last half of post, Distinguishing "Causes" from "causes" - that discussion would be a bookshelf added to what already exists). I'm not sure how much Mao-Giap and other Marxist-Leninist theory SWC wants to hear - not all here are red diaper or pink diaper babies (). The Marxists wrote the original books, except for the Indonesian Gen who wrote his original book from a center-right viewpoint.

In fact, if the Narrative is really "from the People, back to the People" in a positive feedback loop, where theses and anti-theses are worked into syntheses, and the syntheses are implemented at a local level so that the People can see that the Narrative works, then we have in your wonderful academic language:

Narratives structure lived, day-to-day experiences by providing both expressive and explanatory means for people to comprehend these experiences; they are the "interpretive schemas" I keep talking about. Where we get a really interesting "convergence" is between ideological and religious narratives which, basically, cover the same ground area by offering sometimes complementary, sometimes antithetical schemas.

Was your mother a Librarian ?

Best as always, Canuck

Mike

[slapout9]

Link to cross post on similar topic on good government.


http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...1337#post91337

[marct]

Hi Mike,

Originally Posted by jmm99

Admittedly, I could have gone further with Causation (both with multiplicity of causes and their proximity to the material situation - and which ultimate causes are "Acts of God" and which are "Acts of Man"). Been there and done that to some extent with civil litigation (where we look more to multiple causes and attribution of comparative fault than in criminal litigation, where its nature requires simpler solutions).

I remember getting into a really great discussion with some colleagues years ago on just where we picked up this idea of "causation" and "causality"; interesting, even if the final hours are sort of blurry . What is an "Act of God"? I find it fascinating how the line of inclusion / exclusion operates on it even as the category is still accepted.

Originally Posted by jmm99

and we get into a process similar to a Thomist proof of God taught to me by my mother (she taught RC religion). Fine for a matter of belief (after all, Credo means "I believe"), but not really a matter of objective knowledge (Scio = "I know").

The ex nihil, nihil fit? Hmmm, maybe, but the problem I have with the concept of "objective knowledge" is not that it can not and does not exists but, rather, the assumption that we as individual humans can perceive it and, after such a perception, communicate it inter-subjectively.

I notice that you are going back to Latin. Have you followed the earlier etymology of the word to its proto-Indo-European root, sci*? It means "to cut" or "parse", which has some interesting implications .

Originally Posted by jmm99

So, as a practitioner, I'd rather focus on the "Causes" in the respective "Narratives" - and how those Narratives meet the realities of the situational environment. The best theoretical Narrative in the world will fall on its tail if it is not implemented on the ground at the local level (whether urban or rural).

Totally! I'm more focused on the modelling so that I can figure out the mechanisms of local adaptation more than anything else. I already have a pretty good model that describes how local adaptations take place in categories and relationships, but it's still not good enough to really work that well; it describes the process nicely, but falls down on projecting outcomes....

Originally Posted by jmm99

Was your mother a Librarian ?

Nope, a self-educated (via drinking with profs) Anthropologist and theologian who was heavily involved in the CR movement in the 1960's.

Cheers,

Marc

[jmm99]

Hi Marc

As to this:

from marct
The ex nihil, nihil fit? Hmmm, maybe, but the problem I have with the concept of "objective knowledge" is not that it can not and does not exists but, rather, the assumption that we as individual humans can perceive it and, after such a perception, communicate it inter-subjectively.

juries do it everyday in civil cases by allocating causation and fault.

Yes, that is "inter-subjective communications" based on their perceptions. The problem, of course, is that another jury given the same facts could come up with a different allocation. Thus, a problem in predictability.

There are jury verdict reporting services (used by insurance companies and trial lawyers) which give ranges in different situations - "fuzzy patterns", which provide some guidance and perhaps an argument in settling cases.

So, in my book, "Causation" is something of a voodoo science - a mixture of credo and scio. PS: the only reason I use those terms is that my high school Latin teacher drilled them into my skull.

When you put together your model on "Causes" and the "Narrative", please let us know. This sounds interesting, but difficult:

I'm more focused on the modelling so that I can figure out the mechanisms of local adaptation more than anything else. I already have a pretty good model that describes how local adaptations take place in categories and relationships, but it's still not good enough to really work that well; it describes the process nicely, but falls down on projecting outcomes....

Regards

Mike

[Dayuhan]

I think BW has valid points if we're discussing insurgency. There's a certain problem in applying those points to our current conflicts, though, because we're not fighting against insurgencies. One of the reasons our current problem set looks so complex is that we keep slamming square pegs into round holes and trying to impose grandiose but imaginary and counterproductive constructs such as "war on terror" and "global insurgency".

We're fighting a war against AQ, but AQ is not an insurgency, unless we stretch the definition of insurgency far beyond the breaking point. AQ is not populace-based or nationally based, nor is it directed toward the overthrow of an existing government. It's never been able to muster sufficient support in any national environment to drive a true insurgency, though it has managed to exploit existing insurgencies that it did not create. AQ doesn't need to move the populace of any given nation to establish a COG and overthrow a Government, it draws its strength from diffusion and holding a relatively small but very highly motivated core of true believers spread out among a large number of national environments. An insurgency needs to establish a support base among a national populace, a terrorist group does not.

I don't see the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan as insurgencies either. We didn't start these fights to defend a government from insurgents, we started them to remove governments we found distasteful. We succeeded, and created power vacuums in both areas. What we are seeing now is not insurgency against established governments, it is armed competition to fill that vacuum. In each case we support one one of the contending parties, which we choose to call a government.

In this environment "good governance" may be less an issue than it would be in a traditional government vs insurgent scenario. The armed parties are not fighting for good government, they are fighting for power, which they will use to advance their own interests. The populace is less concerned with good governance than with staying out of the line of fire and with supporting whatever faction they think will best advance the interests of the groups they actually identify with, more likely to be defined by family, clan, tribal, or sectarian distinctions than by any concept of nationhood. "Good governance" is only an issue to the extent that it is defined as "governance that brings benefits and protection to me and mine".

In some cases, especially in Afghanistan, people may be fighting not because they object to bad government but because they simply don't want to be governed. In this case any external government constitutes bad government.

In short, I think BW makes valid points about what we might call the Cold War pattern of insurgency. I'm just not sure our current fights fit into this pattern.

[jmm99]

Hi Dayuhan et al,

My two centavos worth since I cite two posts.

We may be on the same page.

As close as I can come, AQ is waging global special operations warfare. If you want to say they are waging global unconventional warfare, that's OK since AQ's operations take place in areas it regards as "eneny-occupied" territory. See this post:

Hi John - part 2

As to "global", but not "insurgency" (except as part of the toolkit), see this post:

You're moving in the right direction

Those are my current best shots at the 25m target.

Regards

Mike

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by jmm99

As close as I can come, AQ is waging global special operations warfare. If you want to say they are waging global unconventional warfare, that's OK since AQ's operations take place in areas it regards as "eneny-occupied" territory. See this post:

I can agree with that. The problem I have with calling AQ an insurgency is that the term seems to invoke a reflexive "COIN" response, which in turn assumes a set of conditions that I don't believe are pertinent to this particular problem.

[Bob's World]

Nice to see more people noticing that "Global Insurgency" is a concept that probably confuses and hinders efforts against AQ far more than it helps.

Consider the following items that AQ lacks:

1. A state.
2. A populace.

Makes it kind of hard to hold a decent insurgency when you are lacking the two key ingredients. Like conducting a Global Margarita party, except without Tequila or Limes...

But one needs neither a state nor a populace to conduct UW. One only needs the will to incite and support insurgency among the populace of another's state, and the means to do so. The current information age provided AQ the Means to develop a UW network that incites and supports insurgency among Sunni Muslim populaces in a wide range of countries. To include your own, where ever you might currently be.

If you feel the urge to conduct COIN, I suggest, like charity, you begin at home. Ensure the populace of your own country is experiencing "Good Governance." That every significant segment of the populace perceives itself to be included; to be respected and have justice under the law; to have legitimate and effective means available to them to address their grievances and participate fully in the governmental process. That is good COIN. Do this and you will immunize your populace from possible infection from those like AQ who would come to your home and conduct UW for their own selfish, political ends.

COIN is typically waged in the countryside of lands far away; but Insurgency is won and lost in one's very own capital cities. Insurgency in the Philippines will fade when the Government in Manila finally decides to provide good governance to all of its populace equitably. Similarly in Kabul and Afghanistan.

When one can see COIN as simply governments doing what governments are supposed to do, day in and day out; with the military component of COIN only being implemented when the civil governance has lost control and needs some assistance, one is prepared to prevail. To think of COIN as warfare that is caused by insurgents is to let our politicians off the hook for their failures. Good COIN is “peacefare.” It denies Causation; and when Causation is denied, Motivation falls flat.