How do We Train to Match our Actions to Our Narrative?

[Rank amateur]

informal ("darker" to use his term) narrative is much more powerful as it's based on more primal considerations (and often passed on by someone the listener 'knows' or 'respects').

I agree. I think it's very reasonable to assume that when you aim a kinetic weapon at someone you will get a primal "fight or flight" reaction. I think many of the problems in Iraq can be traced - at least in part - to the fact that our strategy depends on a different, more cooperative primal response.

[Ron Humphrey]

I agree. I think it's very reasonable to assume that when you aim a kinetic weapon at someone you will get a primal "fight or flight" reaction. I think many of the problems in Iraq can be traced - at least in part - to the fact that our strategy depends on a different, more cooperative primal response.

Would you be able to expand on that? (Within the realm of open source, of course)

[Rank amateur]

Would you be able to expand on that?

I can. I'm making very slow progress on an essay "The limits of COIN doctrine in a multifactional environment with a weak central government." I will be looking for comment and feedback. (For example, I'm not sure that I've used the word doctrine correctly.) I'll send you a first draft - when ready - through p.m. if you'd like.

I hadn't considered primal emotion until this thread, but diplomats do everything possible to remove primary responses before negoitations. (Excessive politeness limits the possibility of anger. They even feed everyone to make sure that they aren't hungry. etc.) Battle is obviously very primal. Diplomacy works well with multiple parties. War tends to be binary. (Even in a world war all the countries split into sides: i.e. Allies vs. Axis.) Traditional COIN is also binary: government vs. anti government insurgents.

I'm thinking about the problems/implications/potential solutions of "clearing and holding" in multifactional environments. Hopefully, I'll be able to get everything down coherently. Any thoughts, comments or relevant experiences from the council are very welcome.

To bring the discussion back on topic. If our actions invoke primal responses - fear, fight or flight - is it realistic to expect people to accept our narrative that we want political reconciliation? Obviously, we're trying to create fewer/weaker primal responses through less kinetic ops etc., and we're being more diplomatic - sipping tea with chiefs - so we've recognized the problem/issues. I hope to add something to the dialog.

[Ron Humphrey]

I can. I'm making very slow progress on an essay "The limits of COIN doctrine in a multi factional environment with a weak central government." I will be looking for comment and feedback. (For example, I'm not sure that I've used the word doctrine correctly.) I'll send you a first draft - when ready - through p.m. if you'd like.

I hadn't considered primal emotion until this thread, but diplomats do everything possible to remove primary responses before negotiations. (Excessive politeness limits the possibility of anger. They even feed everyone to make sure that they aren't hungry. etc.) Battle is obviously very primal. Diplomacy works well with multiple parties. War tends to be binary. (Even in a world war all the countries split into sides: i.e. Allies vs. Axis.) Traditional COIN is also binary: government vs. anti government insurgents.

I'm thinking about the problems/implications/potential solutions of "clearing and holding" in multi factional environments. Hopefully, I'll be able to get everything down coherently. Any thoughts, comments or relevant experiences from the council are very welcome.

To bring the discussion back on topic. If our actions invoke primal responses - fear, fight or flight - is it realistic to expect people to accept our narrative that we want political reconciliation? Obviously, we're trying to create fewer/weaker primal responses through less kinetic ops etc., and we're being more diplomatic - sipping tea with chiefs - so we've recognized the problem/issues. I hope to add something to the dialog.

Sounds very thought provoking , the one thing I would say is that regardless of how hard negotiators may try to keep primal considerations out of negotiations the best one's seem to realize at some point that in the end any lasting resolution will have to address those very things. If not you may have an "agreement" today but be almost guaranteed to have to return to the bargaining table quite often.

It is saddening to me how we as human beings want to try so hard to make our worlds fit into something comfortable and equally unrepresentative of the realities of who we are. Planning for businesses, architects, scientists, etc allow for some verifiable understanding of what the future for particular projects looks like. Life on the other hand (which is in my opinion) what we're really dealing with in wars is not only not predictable but literally interdependent on all the players involved and the primal instincts each has.

I think back to a quote I think was Abraham Lincoln.

The best thing about the future is that it happens one day at a time

By trying to keep what is natural and thereby unavoidable out of planning we really do tend to forget that tomorrow's another day and those things that weren't addressed today WILL still be there tomorrow.

Good luck with the paper and I'd love to see a copy, but considering the company we keep here I'm sure some of the other's will be able to help much more than I

[Dr Jack]

Cross posting - the concept of the "mission narrative" is the subject of this post on the CAC Blog:

http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/B...narrative.aspx