The concept of "adaptation"

[Tom Odom]

when the Union crushed the Confederacy.

We were not crushed. We merely called for an extended time out

[wm]

I think that way too many people in the West have this idea, actually it seems to be an axiomatic assumption, that States can be built top down. Honestly, I think that's a load of hooey and I would point to all of the successes that that idea has produced: Iraq, South Africa, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, the Congo, etc. ad nauseum.

I think what we are seeing in Iraq is a real example of state building - bottom up construction that drags the "national leaders" kicking and screaming (or whining and b*%&@ing) into building a real state. Will it succeed? No idea, but the odds go down a long way if the emergentist propeties of state construction are ignored.

I agree completely with MarcT here. To add to his great sucess list, let's consider Yugoslavia and the USSR among others.
If you look at the early history of the 13 Colonies and the emergent US (up to about 1898 or so), I think you get a better idea of what a grass roots democratic process is. And we haven't finished yet; America still has issues with states' rights versus federalism. Canada has similar historical roots I think and provincial versus national rights issues (I am particularly aware of them with regard to the energy industry).

Why assume that they don't identify themselves as Iraqis? One of the problems I've seen with identity construction/politics is how so many people assume that it has to be monolithic - that certainly doesn't match anything in the psychology literature! I think we are better, in marketing terms, to concentrate of situational identities rather than self-identities. This also works better in market research as well (BTW, I'm just finishing several MR reports that use that type of analysis).

Another big agreement from me. Americans are also not monolithic. We present a very different face on the inside to what we present on the outside. We band together to present a united front when faced with external, non-American opppostion. But, we engage in pretty destructive internacine squabbles among our various geographic regions, immigrant origins, political parties and other social/reliogious/economic segements of the American "market." Sometimes you segment the market, sometimes you don't--the real trick is knowing when to do each. This is what I take MarcT to be saying here:

Not only does it produce better actionable intelligence in marketing terms, it actually gives more leverage in grass roots political terms. If you know the situational identities of a target market, you are more easily able to figure out how to exapt semantic components from one situational identity to another.

[tequila]

Well, let's define terms first. I'll take "top-down" state as any state with a powerful central government that sets the majority of domestic and foreign policies for a nation, that maintains a monopoly of force over its constituent parts via either a powerful military or internal security force, and whose citizens view themselves overwhelmingly as citizens/subjects of the defined national state first. To my mind, the United States is a top-down state, and the Civil War made it so --- the state was created in the most top-down method imaginable, through the military destruction of an attempted revolt.

Before the war, many if not most citizens viewed themselves as citizens of their state first and foremost. Not so afterwards, and this was because the might of the central government was made apparent.

Founding myths/legitimation comes into play to a certain degree here. Americans do not view their central government the way that Chinese do, for instance. Squabbles over federalism occur here and there in the U.S. No one, however, doubts the supremacy of the Federal government or its right to maintain total military and legal domnation over its constituent parts.

[wm]

Well, let's define terms first. I'll take "top-down" state as any state with a powerful central government that sets the majority of domestic and foreign policies for a nation, that maintains a monopoly of force over its constituent parts via either a powerful military or internal security force, and whose citizens view themselves overwhelmingly as citizens/subjects of the defined national state first. To my mind, the United States is a top-down state, and the Civil War made it so --- the state was created in the most top-down method imaginable, through the military destruction of an attempted revolt.

Before the war, many if not most citizens viewed themselves as citizens of their state first and foremost. Not so afterwards, and this was because the might of the central government was made apparent.

Founding myths/legitimation comes into play to a certain degree here. Americans do not view their central government the way that Chinese do, for instance. Squabbles over federalism occur here and there in the U.S. No one, however, doubts the supremacy of the Federal government or its right to maintain total military and legal domnation over its constituent parts.

I see some equivocation between this post and your earlier one. First you defined a top down state as one that was formed by a power elite of some type. Now you are identifying it as a state that has evolved into a state with a centrally enforced set of laws/policies. Nice try at having your cake and eating it too IMHO.

Regarding your last paragraph, I think a fairly large number of folk have issues with the supremacy of the Federal government. Why else are there so many cases submitted to the Suprem Court each year? Why do we have some of the "survivalist" groups and the Libertarian Party? Desegration was largely implemented as a commerce issue--eliminating unfair restraint of trade across state lines--not on a Federally mandated human rights position that was at odds with the beliefs of many states' citizens. A very large portion of what Americans do and do not do is left strictly to the individual states to regulate. If no one doubted "the supremacy of the Federal government or its right to maintain total military and legal domnation over its constituent parts," then why does each state have at least one militia--the various state National Guards. Matters of probate and marriage are regulated by states. Review the so-called "gay marriage" controversy if you want a current example of a lack of Federal supremacy and legal domination.

[marct]

WM,

You're agreeing with me without 20 clarifying emails/posts?!?!?

Yes, I think you got the thrust of my observations. As for Canada, it's complicated by the way we conquered Quebec originally (or did we ), and by the really odd, and divergent, ways we dealt with our First Nations.

Tequila has a good point about defining terms, and I really should have done so since it looks like we define top-down states differently.

Bottom-up states: states that emerge out of a grassroots process of negotiation (including warfare) but, as a result of that emergence process, develop a common "narrative range" of what the state is and should be.

Top-down states: states that are created, expanded or maintained by a centralized force which impose a narrative range of what the state is and should be.

Narrative range: a term referring to the spectrum of socially (not culturally) valid and legitimate forms and functions of the state and governance in general.

I would argue that Saddam's Iraq was a top-down state, while what I think we are seeing now is the emergence of a bottom up state.

Hope those definitions make my position a little clearer.

Marc

[wm]

MarcT

WM,

You're agreeing with me without 20 clarifying emails/posts?!?!?

This is praxis, not theoria. Agreeing on the what is easy. Agreeing on the why takes in-depth discussion.

Yes, I think you got the thrust of my observations. As for Canada, it's complicated by the way we conquered Quebec originally (or did we ), and by the really odd, and divergent, ways we dealt with our First Nations.

The US had/has similar issues in absorbing our Native Americans as well as the previously-European-settled-territories (why does that remind of "the artist formerly known as Prince'?) acquired later via purchase or conquest--Florida, Louisiana, Texas, California all come to mind ( and they all still seem to be somewhat "separate" in their own unique ways from the rest of the country ).

I would argue that Saddam's Iraq was a top-down state, while what I think we are seeing now is the emergence of a bottom up state.

After the (I won't point any fingers) failure to try to emplace a "top down" state ???

[Rank amateur]

The simplest way to do so is to change your message:
Marc

That's hard to do when the commander in chief insists that his objectives haven't and never will, change.

[marct]

[quote=wm;25704]This is praxis, not theoria. Agreeing on the what is easy. Agreeing on the why takes in-depth discussion. {/quote]

LOLOL - true, but let's not forget the requirements for malt based intelligence enhancers either .

After the (I won't point any fingers) failure to try to emplace a "top down" state ???

Yup - there's a something running around in the back of my head somewhere that starts with "When in the course of human events..." .

Somewhat more seriously, overthrowing Saddam and creating the current mess could, in the long run, be the best thing for Iraqi national identity. For the first time in a long while, the Iraqis are being forced to deal with a lot of issues that they have never been allowed to deal with before, and I think (well, actually, hope is more accurate) that they will be able to come up with a workable political structure. They need time and impetus; after all, it took the American rebels, what, 12-13 years to get the first semi-stable version of the US together?

That's hard to do when the commander in chief insists that his objectives haven't and never will, change.

Quite bluntly, as a lame duck president, he's pretty much out of the political equation right now. He can still damage the process and message, but the political actions of the new field of presidential hopefuls is, as far as the message is concerned, probably more important.

[Rank amateur]

Why assume that they don't identify themselves as Iraqis? One of the problems I've seen with identity construction/politics is how so many people assume that it has to be monolithic

I'm not making assumptions. I consider observing ethnic cleansing and sectarian death squads as strong evidence that indicates Iraqi is not their strongest identity at the moment. I don't think "Foreigners came here and set us up" is an effective founding myth. Do you know of any founding myths where the people aren't the heroes? (God, being an exception.)

"We voted, the occupiers left," could've worked as a founding myth.

"We kicked the occupier's ass, then we realized we had a lot more in common with the occupiers than we'd originally thought," is part of America's founding myth.

"We had a civil war, and then reached an agreement" is part of America's founding myth. (though Tom still has trouble with it.)

We offered Vietnam, "America helped us avoid the mistake of being communist." They insisted on, "We kicked out the foreigners, then we decided for ourselves that communism didn't work very well."

South African whites decided that they were tired of being treated like lepers every time they traveled, but they decided for themselves that it was time to changes. The blacks fought long and hard to end apartheid, so they were able to work things out. Foreigners in their creation myth are just a foot note. (like the French in America's myth.)

What is the plan to make our presence a footnote?

Marlboro didn't create the cowboy myth. They co opted it for their own purpose. Even the language we use in Iraq is western: democracy, benchmarks, etc. While Nike uses terms like "hoops, hops, swish, pound the paint, hang time" to sell basketball shoes to American teenagers.

I have no idea what kinds of terms Iraqis use when they discuss society, government etc. But I'm pretty sure that the percentage of people who work at Nike who understand "taking it strong to the hole" far exceeds the percentage of people in the military who understand intricate aspects of Iraqi society.

More importantly, even if troops figure it out after 5 or 10 years of COIN, the powers that be won't care. They'll just say, "Can't we come up with a psy ops that makes them do what we want?"

[Rank amateur]

Quite bluntly, as a lame duck president, he's pretty much out of the political equation right now. He can still damage the process and message, but the political actions of the new field of presidential hopefuls is, as far as the message is concerned, probably more important.

They're still using terms like "victory and defeat." If we win, someone has to lose. The loser could be AQI, but if we don't change our definition of insurgent to "AQI member," there are still going to be a lot of Iraqis out there who don't want to be losers.

[RTK]

I'm not making assumptions. I consider observing ethnic cleansing and sectarian death squads as strong evidence that indicates Iraqi is not their strongest identity at the moment.

I have no idea what kinds of terms Iraqis use when they discuss society, government etc. But I'm pretty sure that the percentage of people who work at Nike who understand "taking it strong to the hole" far exceeds the percentage of people in the military who understand intricate aspects of Iraqi society.

More importantly, even if troops figure it out after 5 or 10 years of COIN, the powers that be won't care. They'll just say, "Can't we come up with a psy ops that makes them do what we want?"

You hit a nerve. It's not a good one.

I consider observing through the lens of MSM an obstructed view.

If you haven't had day to day interaction with an Iraqi in the last 4 years, don't speculate on what you think, have no idea, or are pretty sure about. Particularly when making generalizations on what Soldiers understand.

[Rob Thornton]

RA,

I'm sure you meant no disrespect, but really wished to pose a question in the form of an observation or comment - don't worry, I saw a few law makers do the same thing this week However....
Quote:

I have no idea what kinds of terms Iraqis use when they discuss society, government etc. But I'm pretty sure that the percentage of people who work at Nike who understand "taking it strong to the hole" far exceeds the percentage of people in the military who understand intricate aspects of Iraqi society.

More importantly, even if troops figure it out after 5 or 10 years of COIN, the powers that be won't care. They'll just say, "Can't we come up with a psy ops that makes them do what we want?"

I think the members of our military who have deployed or are in a deployment have been fundamentally changed by their experience. We've now passed a point where this has entered into the "system" and shapes Institutional debates at the NCO/SNCO/Company Grade/and Field Grade Levels - recent #s at even the US Army War College show operational experience in numbers that recent operational experience is always the elephant in the room and everyone ties back and shares their recent history to provide context to content. We are now at a point where senior Active Duty and Active Reserve Component Leaders are moving into positions to shape not only COIN theory, but DOTLMPF (easier just to Google it ) for some time to come. Soon to be USMC GEN Mattis to the position of JFCOM CDR is a great example - this is the command which shapes the Joint Force. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Soldier or Marine - or increasingly an Airman or Sailor who has not at least considered the impact of culture on their mission.

I will agree to a lesser degree that the average American Citizen does not understand the impact of culture, and would look for a short cut solution, or Jedi trick to achieve compliance. This has to do with the tidal wave of overwhelming influence our own culture and access to multiple mass media outlets that shout in the same language about the same things has on us.

I will also add that as someone in the marketing biz - you can add some very unique insights on how to approach "selling", but might not have considered the next level of the consequences of doing so - that is something we are trying to get our military members cognizant of as they interact with foreign cultures.

Best regards, Rob

[tequila]

I see some equivocation between this post and your earlier one. First you defined a top down state as one that was formed by a power elite of some type. Now you are identifying it as a state that has evolved into a state with a centrally enforced set of laws/policies. Nice try at having your cake and eating it too IMHO.

Meh. I consider the Civil War as the beginning of America as a modern nation-state. A top-down state does not have to be formed by a "power elite" --- the Federal government counts as a power base. By conquering the South, it established the Federal government as supreme over the states and final arbiter of both law and military power.

Regarding your last paragraph, I think a fairly large number of folk have issues with the supremacy of the Federal government. Why else are there so many cases submitted to the Suprem Court each year? Why do we have some of the "survivalist" groups and the Libertarian Party? Desegration was largely implemented as a commerce issue--eliminating unfair restraint of trade across state lines--not on a Federally mandated human rights position that was at odds with the beliefs of many states' citizens. A very large portion of what Americans do and do not do is left strictly to the individual states to regulate. If no one doubted "the supremacy of the Federal government or its right to maintain total military and legal domnation over its constituent parts," then why does each state have at least one militia--the various state National Guards. Matters of probate and marriage are regulated by states. Review the so-called "gay marriage" controversy if you want a current example of a lack of Federal supremacy and legal domination.

Submitting cases to the Supreme Court is evidence of acquiescence with the power of the Federal government. The SC is a Federal institution. Survivalists and libertarians are fringe groups of no consequence. The key desegregation decision in the U.S. is Brown v. Board of Education which held that separate but equal facilities violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the commerce clause. Also this decision was enforced by Federal marshals and the 101st Airborne, amongst other Federal institutions, against the will of many state and local authorities. The National Guard is subordinate to the Federal government and is subject to be federalized at any time, as many Guardsmen have discovered in the past six years. It is also utterly dependent on Federal funds for its equipment and training, and most states have refused to assert their independence by attempting to fund the Guard. This indicates that states do not see the Guard as a viable protection against Federal authority. All legal matters, including probate and family law, as noted before, are subject to the authority of the Supreme Court.

I would argue that Saddam's Iraq was a top-down state, while what I think we are seeing now is the emergence of a bottom up state.

What is the evidence of "bottom up" development? Does ethnic cleansing of Baghdad and Diyala fit the bill? Is this "negotiation" by other means? Do localized truces or alliances between American forces and Sunni or tribal militias fit the bill? How does this assist in state formation? What about assassination and street warfare between Fadhila and the Mahdi Army in Basra, or shootouts in Karbala between Mahdi and Badr? Perhaps the KRG's ban on the Iraqi national flag is a just a negotiating point?

Would you view, say, the civil wars in Yugoslavia as "bottom-up" state formation?

This al-Jazeera English doc makes the point pretty well (click Part 2, Part 1 is just Sheikh Hatem hating on Sheikh Sattar al-Rishawi as per usual). Shi'i refugees from Taji detail being ejected from their neighborhoods by Sunni Fallahat tribesmen who are now allied with the Americans, cementing Fallahat control of the area and thus hardening sectarian division. Hardly the best example of "bottom-up reconciliation".

[RTK]

As an outsider looking in, I wonder if anyone would be able to point me to any papers, books, or other publications that analyze the concept of adaptation from a military perspective.

Bob,

To get back to the original question of the topic, I'd steer you towards this book:

Company Command: Unleashing the Power of the Army Profession by Nancy Dixon, Nate Allen, Tony Burgess, Pete Kilner, and Steve Schweitzer.

This is the story of how Companycommand.com and Platoonleader.com (not using those web addresses anymore since they fall under the AKO umbrella now) came into being. A pretty good summary of what these two forums do can be found here. CNN even covered it here.

Other examples? Your using one right now. You'd be surprised how many people in the Profession of Arms use this daily and dialog back and forth in the background. SWJ, Companycommand.com, platoonleader.com, and professionalsoldiers.com are all communities of practice that exemplify adaptation at work.

[Tom OC]

The process of gaining generalized control over conditions in the environment or situation, typically involving the generation of new resources or the more efficient allocation of existing resources among both individual and collective entities in order to secure new capabilities for the system.
-Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The Social System. Free Press.

[marct]

Hi Tequila,

I would argue that Saddam's Iraq was a top-down state, while what I think we are seeing now is the emergence of a bottom up state.

What is the evidence of "bottom up" development? Does ethnic cleansing of Baghdad and Diyala fit the bill? Is this "negotiation" by other means? Do localized truces or alliances between American forces and Sunni or tribal militias fit the bill? How does this assist in state formation? What about assassination and street warfare between Fadhila and the Mahdi Army in Basra, or shootouts in Karbala between Mahdi and Badr? Perhaps the KRG's ban on the Iraqi national flag is a just a negotiating point?

Would you view, say, the civil wars in Yugoslavia as "bottom-up" state formation?

Did I ever say it would be a California Crunchie love fest? If you want to know how ethnic, or any other type of "clensing" fits into early state formation, look at examples such as the US during and just after the revolution, or France during its bids for ethnic "unity" (i.e. the Cathar Crusades, the Huguenaut massacres, etc.). Inever said anything about civil wars not acting as the basis for bottom up state formation. BTW, as the current successor states to Yugoslavia if that civil war served as a process of state formation.

Tequila, what I am getting at is a very old distinction between state types that Machiavelli touches on. Is the king a first amongst equals or totally dominant? In its modern form, we could substitute President or Federal Government for king.

Marc

[tequila]

Marc,

France is a perfect example, I think of a "top-down" state that was formed exactly through the process of civil/sectarian war, especially in its ancien regime form. I would not call it a "bottom up" process, even if many of the King's wars and edicts were carried out by local actors.

What we see in Iraq is quite different from this process, where the French monarchy gathered all means of legitimate force and cultural/religious hegemony into itself. If anything, the means of force and cultural/religious legitimacy are spreading outwards and dissipating amongst many varied actors, but there is little attaching them to the center.

The civil war did serve as state formation for Bosnia and Croatia, but it didn't do much for the state of Yugoslavia, did it?

[marct]

Hi Tequila,

I'd agree with you on France's ancien regime - it certainly was a top-down state. I think it is important, however, to look at how that happened, i.e. the Hundred Years War, the collapse of Burgundy, etc. I think that France gives a pretty good example of the emergence of a top down state out of conquest and cultural genocide.

As for Yugoslavia, well, what can I say? States come and go.

Marc

[Rob Thornton]

RA,
After re-reading the post I responded to RA with I thought I might make a public apology if:

by equating your post with congressional questions I unintentionally equated you with our distinguished politicians - they are good men and women, but I don't mean to type cast.

or, if by saying you might not appreciate the "consequences of selling" I portrayed you or the marketing profession in a stereo-typical fashion.

I absolutely meant that you have a valuable perspective- one I think we should certainly consider is the pervasiveness of our own culture into foreign markets - its just what we do - and this has positive consequences as well as possible negative consequences in those cultures.

I also think we now understand that when we put people on the ground we must understand that they have a set of perceptions about us due to many seeing our influence on their traditional social values as being invasive - they might enjoy drinking a Coke, or smoking a Marlboro - but they don't want their cultural beliefs stood on end - its quite a dichotomy. Likewise as units and soldiers rotate through multiple times, they see how their presence can confirm or deny local perception and mitigate fears by building trust.


I promise I've not gone "squishy" on anybody - just wanted to right what I think may have been seen as a wrong.

Best regards, Rob

[tequila]

As for Yugoslavia, well, what can I say? States come and go.

Marc

My main point on Iraq is that Iraq is much closer to Yugoslavia right now than either France or Switzerland or, to mention a more relevant example, Lebanon (IMO the only bottom-up state in the region, excepting perhaps the UAE).