Class Analysis and COIN

[AmericanPride]

I'd like to share a few thoughts I've had. I appreciate, as always, any comments shared.


I. Class Analysis in the Absence of an Analytical Foundation
Even with the introduction of human terrain teams (HTTs) and cultural awareness in Army operations, the absence of an analytical foundation with which to examine the target country hinders battlefield success. Without a universal analytical foundation to understand the structure and effects of a particular society, identifying the center of gravity and consequently the drivers that dictate targeting becomes misleading. The current debates surrounding counterinsurgency operations, centers of gravity, and targeting all indicate the absence of a universal understanding of an analytic foundation that explains the functions of a society. Such a foundation would not only reveal the organization of a society, but also its vulnerabilities and strengths, enabling more effective targeting as well as predictive analysis in the contemporary operating environment. Class analysis examines the underlying tensions that exist in society as a consequence of conflicting interests that arise from different social positions. Alternatively, classes can be labeled as ‘factions’. By exploring the interests and relationships of a society’s various classes, the analyst can identify the causes of conflict, the prime movers in society and in the conflict, and then determine how best to develop lethal and non-lethal targeting packages.

II. Problems in the Current Army Use of Human Terrain Mapping
Several major problems underlie the Army’s analysis of the contemporary operating environment: (1) it has no base assumption on the organization and operations of a society and its classes even though it has defined ‘war’, ‘insurgency’ and ‘terrorism’ in relation to political power; (2) therefore, it does not accurately depict the structure of a society, reflected in, but not determined by, the distribution of power and resources; (3) consequently undermining both lethal and non-lethal targeting against those factions that can or do hold power.

III. The Political Decision in the Military Act
While Clausewitz defined war as an extension of policy, he further argues that the political object sought by war is suspended and replaced by the immediate desire for military victory. Military acts therefore do not have a political nature to them except for the strategy as a whole. However, in insurgency every military act is a political decision. This is because the classes within a society, rather than the state itself, are using war as an extension of their own interests.

IV. The Four Masks: Race, Religion, Ideology, and Gender
Four masks serve to disguise the underlying motives of a class, to mobilize a class for a particular behavior, or to determine the “appropriate” level of wealth, prestige, and power reserved for a class. Nothing in race, religion, ideology, or gender inherently compels a class to violence; these masks serve to clutter accurate analysis, solidify the identity of a class in order to mobilize it, or to distribute/regulate wealth, prestige, and power. One class, or an alliance of several classes, aims to maintain power over a society through one of those means. Those means will reflect the true structure of a society and reveal, through analysis, the factions that dominate a society.

V. Updating Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield
IPB therefore requires an analysis of class organization of a society in order to identify the interests of dominant factions, and how they exploit race, religion, ideology, and gender for their purposes. This will provide an accurate and uncluttered picture of a society’s structure, exposing vulnerabilities and revealing strengths.

VI. Enhancing Targeting by Building Political Stakeholders
By identifying the factions that shape the distribution of power in a society, the commander can more accurately define a target list, both lethal and non-lethal. This will minimize waste, improve the effectiveness of a unit’s actions, and enable the building of stakeholders in a society in order to form a new class, or alliance of classes, that are friendly to American interests. Any echelon can achieve this.

VII. Predictive Analysis in the Contemporary Operating Environment
Strengthening IPB through class analysis will enable a greater capacity to predicate behaviors and outcomes in the contemporary operating environment.

[Ken White]

Rightly or wrongly, and in no particular order, those three aid in class assortment to one degree or another in all societies. I realize you referred to wealth and your reference is correct but wealth also can be a determinant in some societies.

Avoid purely western thought in your effort; for example, it is often said that in the west, persons amass wealth so that they may influence power; elsewhere in the world men seek power so that they may amass wealth.

Skin color is not purely racial difference, it applies as well, perhaps more pointedly from your analytical standpoint, to stratification within groups.

Education is a determinant throughout the world -- and, in different parts of the world, the type of education can make a significant difference. Stratification on educational lines is more severe in the west than elsewhere.

[Ron Humphrey]

How do you work in the "artificial" classes created in each and every society through Fame, fortune, skill, fortitude, strength.

Actors/Actresses
Athletes
Artisans
etc

Each with their own select set of problems derived from the greater focus placed on them then the average citizen

And or the influences they have on a given populace for various reasons

[AmericanPride]

Ron,

Good question. I think those classes are roughly comparable to the court jester's of the feudal age, though today they are certainly more wealthy and more famous. In this sense, I think what is important is that those classes are dependent on the patronage of the elite and wealthy business/political leaders. Therefore to some degree the entertainer classes project the four masks.

To clarify, unlike Marx where he claims that one class dominants society and that all major features of that society reflects the interests of the single dominant class, I think there are a large variety of classes, some strong and some weak. Depending on the size of the society in question, and the relationship of those classes with one another, there can be a number of dominant classes, either competing or cooperating with one another. Here I would differentiate (though I did not do so in my original argument) between classes and factions, whereas the first represents an objective, permanent and materialist categorization reflecting the position of the classes in relationship to the society's hub of power (which I would further argue is always economic), the latter represents a subjective, temporary, and abstract categorization evolving as the classes compete, cooperate, divide or unite.

[AmericanPride]

Ken,

Thanks for your comments. I would argue that education is a reflection of a class's status rather than a determinant because it reflects that class' access to knowledge, which itself is a commodity. What I think is interesting to note is that a significant number of insurgencies and revolutions are led by a vanguard of professionally educated cadre who were at some point alienated from the system's (local/national/international) distribution of power. IMO, this reveals that access to knowledge is an indicator of a class' status but not necessarily its position, and sometimes that access has unintended consequences.

As for skin color, I would include that in a broad definition of 'race' (where I would also include ethnicity, tribal identity, and other such relationships).

You make a good point on wealth and that is something I will integrate into my analysis.

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

III. The Political Decision in the Military Act
While Clausewitz defined war as an extension of policy, he further argues that the political object sought by war is suspended and replaced by the immediate desire for military victory. Military acts therefore do not have a political nature to them except for the strategy as a whole. However, in insurgency every military act is a political decision. This is because the classes within a society, rather than the state itself, are using war as an extension of their own interests.

That's not what I take from CvC. The destruction of the enemies forces has political effect on the other elements of the trinity - Leadership and people. All useful military acts have political effect at some level and for some duration. In fact I would submit that is how you judge the usefulness of military action, and I think CvC makes this point.

An insurgency exactly mirrors CvC's trinity. If it doesn't it's not an insurgency. Destroying the military capability of an insurgency, is one way to defeat the insurgency. - and this alwasy makes me wonder why all the great and good are trying to examine insurgencies as some kind of exclusive case, instead of starting from the premise that COIN is warfare, and not "social work with guns," or some other post-modern take on a very ancient problem.

[AmericanPride]

The destruction of the enemies forces has political effect on the other elements of the trinity - Leadership and people. All useful military acts have political effect at some level and for some duration. In fact I would submit that is how you judge the usefulness of military action, and I think CvC makes this point.

I agree. I think we are talking past one another rather than actually disagreeing. What I pulled from Clausewitz is that a tactical decision, while subordinate to strategy (and ultimately the political object), is aimed at the immediate destruction of the enemy's capacity to fight. Because this is the case for all sides in a conventional conflict, the political decision can be separated from the military act. The decision to destroy one battalion vs. another, for example, is driven by a desire to degrade the enemy's capacity to fight rather than any political decision made on the battlefield and, with everything else being equal, will produce similar results regardless of what battalion is targeted. In contrast, because in insurgency each belligerent is assuming the faculties of a state (that is, to make political decisions, specifically to make war), even the lowest tactical decision is political. Targeting one militia vs another may generate significantly different results based on the politics of those militias.

Destroying the military capability of an insurgency, is one way to defeat the insurgency. - and this alwasy makes me wonder why all the great and good are trying to examine insurgencies as some kind of exclusive case, instead of starting from the premise that COIN is warfare, and not "social work with guns," or some other post-modern take on a very ancient problem.

I agree. I am starting from that same premise, except that I would argue in addition that in an insurgency environment, the various classes of a society assume the political characteristics 'traditionally' reserved for the state.

[Ken White]

Re: Education, we can disagree on that. I think you'll find the in many nations it is difficult to pin down the role education plays. Take the US as an example, consider hiring practices and ponder Richard Florida's thesis just as two quick examples. You may or may not know a family where a son was expected to go to college and do great things and elected not to go. Is he still a member of his parent's 'class' -- I suggest most may be, some will be -- and some will not be. For that matter, look at the Army...

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

As for skin color, I would include that in a broad definition of 'race' (where I would also include ethnicity, tribal identity, and other such relationships).

You could but you'll also find that skin color within races, ethnicity, tribes and even families can make a significant difference in the class to which a person might aspire, might reach and/ or from which one might be excluded. Thus my comment was worded as it was: "Skin color is not purely racial difference, it applies as well, perhaps more pointedly from your analytical standpoint, to stratification within groups."(emphasis added / kw) That applies to an extent in this country but that issue is quite significant in some others. Check out Brazil -- or Panama.

[Bob's World]

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

That's not what I take from CvC. The destruction of the enemies forces has political effect on the other elements of the trinity - Leadership and people. All useful military acts have political effect at some level and for some duration. In fact I would submit that is how you judge the usefulness of military action, and I think CvC makes this point.

An insurgency exactly mirrors CvC's trinity. If it doesn't it's not an insurgency. Destroying the military capability of an insurgency, is one way to defeat the insurgency. - and this alwasy makes me wonder why all the great and good are trying to examine insurgencies as some kind of exclusive case, instead of starting from the premise that COIN is warfare, and not "social work with guns," or some other post-modern take on a very ancient problem.

While I will certainly agree, and history supports, that the defeat of the insurgent's military capacity within ones populace will effectively suppress an insurgency, often for years. But it has not to my knowledge ever truly resolved an insurgency. So long as the conditions giving rise to insurgency exist, the insurgency will re-emerge. It may come back with new leaders, or a new ideology, but it will come back.

Make defeat of the insurgent a supporting effort, but do so while understanding that he is a part of the same populace who's support you are trying to regain as the counterinsurgent and tailor your defeat mechanisms accordingly. The main effort must be upon reestablishing conditions of good governance with the populace writ large. This is not social work with guns, but simply a recognition that when governance fails, it often has to use force in its efforts to re-establish itself with the populace.

To hold that one size fits all, that the solutions that one seeks with ones own popualce are the same that one seeks with a competing state is a concept that I have not seen any convincing arguments made to support. Frankly, I suspect CvC would scratch his head at the concept as well.

[Bob's World]

I know WILF is a smart guy, and that he believes strongly in his position. While I will not simply roll over when confronted with such, nor will I doggedly simply entrench myself in my own position and refuse to listen.

There must be something there, that either I need to examine more closely, or that I need to point out to him so that he can examine it as well. So, after posting, I did a little research to see what others have written about Clausewitz as it applies to Insurgency, and found a paper written by a US Army Major at Leavenworth back in 1995.

As it happens, the position he takes agrees more with the one I hold to than WILF, but that is not why I share it here. I share it because the author takes an approach I had not seen before, and does a nice job of laying out a logical, easy to read argument. I particularlly like his simple diagram that expands the CvC trinity model to include the insurgent. Worth a read, regardless of which camp you happen to subscribe most closely to.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf

[John T. Fishel]

class. The classical definition of social class depends on a relationship of income and occupational prestige. This is often predicted by - often determined by (but not always) level of education. So, if you define class differently - and operational definition is always your right - be prepared to be challenged and to need to keep reasserting your definition.

That said, there is much evidence that societies do not simply organize themselves in terms of class - I/O class. Culture is often seen (particularly by anthropologists like MarcT) as determining social organization. Of course, it may be that individual actions determine both culture and social organization. My point here is to suggest that you not get overly committed to one form of explaining complex human phenomena. As Hamlet said, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Cheers

JohnT

[slapout9]

American Pride, you can use the SBW method I learned in LE. To find out who has the real power in any country,organization,etc. build a System Map based on the 3F's. Family,Friends and Finances and how they are connected. It may sound to simplistic but give it a shot...it can be very revealing

Tips:
1-Real power is often concealed both in stable and unstable countries,organizations,etc.
2-Always follow the money.
3-If a person has a lot of publicity he/she probably dosen't have that much real power. Not always, but more often then not this true.
4-Genology data bases are often gold mines if you take the time to map them.
5-The CIA used to have book that was open source about this....saw it on Robert Steele's website a while back....can not remeber the title.

[AmericanPride]

I pieced together a powerpoint to illustrate the concepts and their relationships. If anyone is interested in reviewing it, let me know and I can e-mail it you.

[wm]

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

Good question. I think those classes are roughly comparable to the court jester's of the feudal age, though today they are certainly more wealthy and more famous. In this sense, I think what is important is that those classes are dependent on the patronage of the elite and wealthy business/political leaders. Therefore to some degree the entertainer classes project the four masks.

I think a better analogy is to the gladiators of ancient Rome or the Charioteers of Byzantium. I suspect that members of the "entertainment classes" in many countries have a much stronger affinity with the common people than with the wealthy. (BTW, I think this is true in the US.)

How does one explain that pro sports figures and actors/actresses get away with the kinds of scandalous and down-right illegal behaviors that would put the common person behind bars for a long time? I suspect it is allowed as a form of anti-hero behavior that gives the great mass of folks an opportunity to be vicariously "naughty" without fear of reprisal.

[Ron Humphrey]

Originally Posted by wm

I think a better analogy is to the gladiators of ancient Rome or the Charioteers of Byzantium. I suspect that members of the "entertainment classes" in many countries have a much stronger affinity with the common people than with the wealthy. (BTW, I think this is true in the US.)

How does one explain that pro sports figures and actors/actresses get away with the kinds of scandalous and down-right illegal behaviors that would put the common person behind bars for a long time? I suspect it is allowed as a form of anti-hero behavior that gives the great mass of folks an opportunity to be vicariously "naughty" without fear of reprisal.

IMHO there really needs to be a recognition of the fact that technological, social, monetary, and other changes in the global society as a whole have led to a plethura of newly designated "class" like groups within which the entire spectrum exist. Aside from the examples you referenced consider Geekdom for one. Groups built on relationship to a given skillset, you have your hero's and villains, your rich your poor, highly educated and not so educated, etc.

Or how about the socio-political implications from fame developed through new media?

[AmericanPride]

Addendum to my argument (and then I will explain my answer(s) to wm's and Ron's questions/statements):

Every society has a 'hub of power' (similar in concept to Clausewitz's center of gravity). This is the thing or sum of things from which power is derived. It can be a characteristic, locality, resource, or capability, or any combination of those things. Essentially, it's the centerpiece that holds a system together. The hub has an orbit within which (its 'reach') move about various classes. The power of a class is determined by its relationship/proximity to the hub and other classes. Some classes may have such a proximity that they are able to project their own influencers upon the hub itself (i.e. patrons). Some classes have no impact whatsoever (alienated classes; slaves). Some are in between (plebs). The more similar classes' proximity, the more competitive and democratic the society. The more dissimilar, the more submissive and autocratic the society. Beyond the hub's orbit is everything outside that society. Some hubs' orbits may be small or large, or overlap with one another. Hubs attract classes like moths to flame. The classes then use the four masks to justify/explain their conditions, their actions, and their relationships. The classes closest to the hub distribute resources, knowledge, wealth, and prestige according to the values they define for the masks in justification of their own position, building systems of patronage. The patronage systems are reflected in the masks. Sometimes the patronage is deliberate (i.e. Saudi Arabia), sometimes its ad hoc (United States IMO), and sometimes its unintentional.

Using that model, I'd explain the privilege of entertainers and athletes as a function of their patronage. They get away with it because they can.

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by Bob's World

I know WILF is a smart guy, and that he believes strongly in his position.

IF I am smart... I would hope it is because I do not believe in anything strongly, and am prepared to understand things based on the evidence! However I am moved by the compliment coming from a man of your stature, Sir.

As it happens, the position he takes agrees more with the one I hold to than WILF, but that is not why I share it here.

I will read it with interest. Travelling at the moment, but top of my list when I get back.

[slapout9]

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

Addendum to my argument (and then I will explain my answer(s) to wm's and Ron's questions/statements):

Every society has a 'hub of power' (similar in concept to Clausewitz's center of gravity). This is the thing or sum of things from which power is derived. It can be a characteristic, locality, resource, or capability, or any combination of those things. Essentially, it's the centerpiece that holds a system together. The hub has an orbit within which (its 'reach') move about various classes. The power of a class is determined by its relationship/proximity to the hub and other classes. Some classes may have such a proximity that they are able to project their own influencers upon the hub itself (i.e. patrons). Some classes have no impact whatsoever (alienated classes; slaves). Some are in between (plebs). The more similar classes' proximity, the more competitive and democratic the society. The more dissimilar, the more submissive and autocratic the society. Beyond the hub's orbit is everything outside that society. Some hubs' orbits may be small or large, or overlap with one another. Hubs attract classes like moths to flame. The classes then use the four masks to justify/explain their conditions, their actions, and their relationships. The classes closest to the hub distribute resources, knowledge, wealth, and prestige according to the values they define for the masks in justification of their own position, building systems of patronage. The patronage systems are reflected in the masks. Sometimes the patronage is deliberate (i.e. Saudi Arabia), sometimes its ad hoc (United States IMO), and sometimes its unintentional.

Using that model, I'd explain the privilege of entertainers and athletes as a function of their patronage. They get away with it because they can.

AmPride, you may not realize this but what you just said is almost straight from one of Colonel Warden's classes on his 5 rings analysis about systems. In general I think you are very much on to something. Keep explaining it if you don't mind. How would you operationalize this? This is one of most detailed Fractal analysis of Ring 4 Population Groups I have seen...again good stuff!

[marct]

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

Every society has a 'hub of power' (similar in concept to Clausewitz's center of gravity). This is the thing or sum of things from which power is derived.

Originally Posted by slapout9

AmPride, you may not realize this but what you just said is almost straight from one of Colonel Warden's classes on his 5 rings analysis about systems.

Hi AmPride,

As a note, it is also almost straight out of the concept of the axis mundi.

BTW, if you haven't run across him already, you might want to track down some of the work by Michel Maffesoli, especially The Time of the Tribes.

[AmericanPride]

Slap and marct,

Thanks for the references. I don't completely understand the concept of axis mundi. My 'inspiration' for the hub of power was Clausewitz's center of gravity, but with the realization that the social environment is non-linear.

How would you operationalize this?

I had updated the ppt presentation I had sent to you to include additions to IPB and targeting. I think it will be most effective to add a new step (a new 'Step 2') to describe the social environment. This will provide a social decision template to map the relationship between the social factors and their influence on the decision-makers and their choices. In turn, this will enable both more accurate predictive analysis and 'structural targeting' aimed at the four foundations of the social structure (the hub of power, classes, the relationships between classes, and the relationships between classes and the hub).