Deconstructing Conflict clipping
June 26th, 2019
Editor's note: The following paper is an example of what John Boyd called a "snowmobile," a synthesis of ideas from across a variety of domains (interested readers can see see how Boyd
develops the notion of "building snowmobiles" in his briefing,
Strategic Game of ? and ?, available
here on DNI, then
scroll down.) Snowmobiles result from analyses combined with trials at a synthesis. Since it is virtually impossible that two people would end up with the same synthesis, they are also likely to disagree on specific points when comparing their results. Boyd
never had a problem with this: he was arguing over and modifying his
grand synthesis of warfare,
Patterns of Conflict,
nearly up until the day he died. It is in this spirit that DNI offers "Deconstructing
Conflict." As with every piece published on DNI, all opinions
and conclusions are those of the author and may not represent those
of Defense and the National Interest. |
Deconstructing Conflict:
Motivations,
Objectives and Strategies July 31, 2004
Humans take conflict and its outcomes—winning and losing, very personally.
In matters of survival, losing means dying. Winning control of resources
means survival and having choices.[i] Winning and
losing are so personal that often, the contested objective becomes fogged
by the focus on the tactics used in the struggle.[ii]
Human conflict, as all behavior, directly correlates to learning, and
learning is completely unique (personal) to each individual. Human conflict
defies casual examination precisely because it is personal. In
order to examine it, we must strip away the contest, tactics and damage
to reveal the mental elements that are common across the spectrum of
conflict. For purpose of emphasis each definitive assertion
about conflict is stated prior to the supporting narrative and then
restated after it is explained. 1. Conflict originates from intellectual activity.
The roots of conflict are as deep and complex as the human mind.
The mind of a human can be viewed as a composite of conscious and
unconscious learning superimposed on a complex of genetic predisposition.
Billions of isolated and related stimuli, reflexes, events and responses reinforce perceptions of success or failure and ultimately translate into a vision of self and correspondingly, self-interest, based on a unique perception of value.[iii]
Personal perception of value is further complicated when millions of individual identities are combined into ethnic, political, religious, and regional self-interest identities that are not homogeneous along
any two of these categories. The actual level of complexity reaches
toward the literal realm of infinity. Fortunately, it is not necessary
to quantify or understand the billions of self-interested identities
that provide the individual roots of conflict. One must only understand
that self-interest can be described as the items in Maslow’s[v]hierarchy
of needs; the tangibles[vi] that might be
assigned value and the intangibles (safety, education, esteem, freedom)
that sometimes might be referred to as "values.  While Maslow provided a superb generalization of the priority that
humans attach to these different needs, each individual builds a hierarchy
that reflects an intensely personal and individualized priority based
on experience and culture. When humans assign priority on needs, they invest assets according to that priority.
It is reasonable and natural that entities take action to satisfy needs. At the primal level, action is oriented around survival,
and to act in the interest of survival is a reasonable expectation of
a sovereign being. It is reasonable in that carnivores feed on beasts
and that herbivores feed on plants. Social orders that promote collective
survival are also reasonable. Efforts by families/tribes, businesses/unions,
governments, and other collectives to procure, develop and secure resources
equate to investment in a favored future environment. Competing for
resources is not greedy, malicious or evil.
The perception of value and self-interest are the core drivers of conflict. Whether based in fact or error is irrelevant. Culture,
personal experience, genetics, and other factors result in standards
for assigning value and justifying self-interest,[vii]but
these standards themselves do not result in conflict. These are
the influences that determine which objectives are assigned value and
will be pursued.
The selection of objectives is the first deliberate mental event that leads to conflict. The mind envisions and selects objectives
that fit within the parameters set by the culture and learning based
factors. An effort to create a future that lies within that set
of parameters commences with the investment of resources attempting
to establish or maintain that desired reality. The pursuit of an objective
requires investment at some level. The investment can be made in time,
labor, thought, treasure or virtually anything that might be ventured.
This investment is an effort in the present that is expected to create
a future that would not exist otherwise. People do what they do because they want what they want.[viii] Thus…conflict originates from intellectual activity. 2. Conflict is a competitive pursuit of incompatible
futures.
When a course of action intended to establish one set of conditions interferes with the success of a course of action intended to establish existence of another set, conflict commences. Competition is inevitable in a world with limited resources put in play by 6 billion sets of standards, 6 billion sets of objectives, and 6 billion favored futures. In such a system, the allocation of resources will always
be in flux. Since competition is incessant and value/values are subject
to appreciation/depreciation, shaping the future equates to 6 billion
investors attempting to capture a share of a transient and fleeting
global net value. If at any given instant, a great ledger sheet could
show the disposition of every asset, resource, value and choice, that
instant would be a victory for some and a defeat for others. Some would
have moved toward their envisioned objective reality, while others would
not have made progress or may have even lost ground. But the competition
for resources does not necessarily equate to conflict. The difference
between competition and conflict is sometimes very hard to define, but
typically, the contest for resources is a competition unless ideology
is a factor. Two contractors vying for the same building contract is a competition. Both want to see the establishment of the structure. But a when an environmental group attempts to stop the construction, conflict commences. The envisioned realities of the contractor and the environmentalists cannot co-exist.
Desire for conflict is not a precondition and both parties may reluctantly enter into the ideological contest. Conflict is not necessarily deliberate and may even be completely unintentional. However, whether the contestants enter the fray enthusiastically or reluctantly, deliberately or unintentionally, conflict is a struggle between motivated reactive entities that sustain a state of tension across a span of time until the struggle to control the future is conceded by the loser. Alexander Hamilton tells us to
expect competition and conflict not because it’s unavoidable but because
it is the pattern of history and because it results from the choices
of independent actors.
The distant future consists of an infinite number of possible futures. An infinite number of possible futures narrows to a smaller number of likely futures then to an imminent future which becomes history when it transits the present. Since there is only one historical reality, there is also only one future reality. Similar to the final score of
an athletic competition, the nature of the future is in play and
indeterminate right up to the second that the final game buzzer sounds.
Each passing moment locks a fleeting reality and becomes the baseline
for the subsequent moment. The score of the moment is a baseline until
the next goal is tallied. The "future reality" is one of billions of
"possibles" that becomes increasingly probable up to the point of becoming
the "present". In the present, reality prohibits the establishment of
other objective realities and becomes the starting point for the formulation
of all new "possible futures". The fact that the establishment
of a single present reality, by definition, prohibits the establishment
of other "possibles" demonstrates that …conflict is a competitive pursuit of incompatible futures. 3. Competition increases the cost of establishing the desired
future.
In a paper titled,Governance and Conflict Resolution in Multi-ethnic
Societies, Kumar Rupesingh refers to conflict as "collisions between projects". "Projects" is a superb term for describing the effort of entities. In common usage it is a word for both the work or investment[x] and the mental "projection" that constitutes the vision or end state to be established[xi]. This fosters the understanding
that intellectual activity or "projection" shapes the nature of individual
efforts, but it is only when the projected paths or strategies collide,
that conflict commences. Clearly, time, labor, or treasure are invested
in all types of competition between "projects" and fiercer competition
is marked by the sacrifice of blood, law and virtue. As stated before,
conflict is a struggle between motivated reactive entities. As the level
of motivation and resources escalates, the level of investment ramps
up in order to defeat a maneuvering opponent similarly engaged.
It is a logical assumption that any given project is more difficult
to accomplish if opposed by a thoughtfully resourced strategy.
Theodore Roosevelt effectively communicated both his objective and the price he was willing to pay when he said: "If I must choose between
righteousness and peace, I choose righteousness". While "righteousness" is certainly subjective, he makes it clear that he is willing to sacrifice peace to establish and maintain his version of it. This
statement conveys the threat to potential opponents that he is willing
to increase the cost of opposing objectives by the use of conflict.
One of the most common and effective tactics is to communicate to the
opponent that his objective is not worth the price he must pay. The
relationship between threat and deterrence are action and reaction that
directly reflect the cost of conflict. The struggle may be merely competition
or diametrically opposed ideological conflict, but in all cases,
competition (opposition) increases the cost of establishing the desired future. 4. A moral and ethical evaluation of self-interest and
the incompatible interest prior to conflict provides a stable intellectual-philosophical
base for operations.
Behaviors are the reaction to the environment. Behavior may be conscious or subconscious, learned or instinctive, but it is the reaction of the living to the perceived environment. The environment is the summation
of available opportunities and restrictions. However, the physical environment
is not the only source of opportunities and restrictions. Thousands
of years of conscious thought have resulted in social values and principles
with an impressive record of success. While these values and principles
are not exempt from attack, they have been durable enough that they
form a tentative global ideal even when implementation is faulty.
Within such a framework of social reciprocity, John Boyd provides a secular definition for good and evil that is easily traced to what Christians refer to as the Golden Rule".
In his "Strategic Game of Interaction and Isolation" seminar, he states:
"Evil occurs when individuals or groups embrace codes of conduct or standards of behavior for their own personal well-being and social approval, yet violate those very same codes or standards to undermine the personal well-being and social approval of others."
Ultimately, if there is a set of opportunities (rights and choices)
that should be construed as common to each human being, then defense
of self (survival) equates to the right to act to procure, develop and
protect resources. Survival and rights as individuals cannot be
easily separated. Exploitation of an opportunity can be construed as an act of survival or self-interest. Even altruistic acts are usually self-sacrificial protections of some transferred human interest. Understanding
what is desired, what it will cost another entity, and comparing it
against the best available standard of morality/ethics, provides a method
for comparing the interest of each entity. This is paramount to comparing
value.
Conflict in and of itself, is not moral or immoral. Just as a woodworker uses sharp metal on wood to create furniture, conflict is the tool that shapes the future. Conscious beings that have autonomy
and a moral code can be moral or immoral, but tools do not choose their
purposes. The woodworker invests time and energy to leverage the
natural properties of the wood into utile and esthetic value. Since
value is a cost-benefit comparison and conflict is an aspect of cost,
value is determined in the outcome. Finely crafted and finished furniture
is a result of careful strategy and tactics (skill) applied to raw materials
to create a finished item of utility and desirability. However, the
same tools used to create such masterpieces of joinery can be turned
to reduce the same masterpiece into a stack of kindling in a fraction
of the time that it took to create it. In either case, the tools warrant
no praise or shame. They are as they were made. They shaped the material
as guided by the wielding hand.
It is appropriate at this juncture to address the idealists that believe
that violence is the ultimate evil or that willingness to fight causes
conflict. They demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of conflict.
Most violence results from the competitive pursuit of opportunity and resources, ideology notwithstanding. Only a person that has never known real hunger or pain believes that nothing is worth competing for. To assert that no self-interest is worth violence and struggle must assume that "the self" is not worth protecting.[xii]
Non-violence may occasionally prevail against a merciful opponent with a watching public or an interest in justice and the rule of law, but an opponent that looks upon such protocols with ambiguity or contempt will subjugate them to self-interest. In the path of the resultant brutality,
non-violence becomes a figurative butterfly in the path of a speeding
car.
Respecting the morally neutral nature of conflict is critical to effective moral-ethical examination. Especially, when conflict is an all or none struggle, it must be viewed as a tool that serves the entity. The price for failing to recognize this would result in triumph for the despots and villains that fail to conduct moral-ethical evaluation or refuse to exercise moral-ethical restraint. Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan all understood this and played the high stakes game with no objective but winning.
Relating behaviors to embraced values provides a basis for comparison
that can be quantified and communicated. Quantification provides the
reference for communicating and advocating. This communication is critical
throughout the pre-conflict, strategy, conflict and post-conflict stages.
Furthermore, making strategic intellectual errors and then allowing an opponent to exploit them increases the probability of defeat. Thorough
evaluations and comparisons of the environment, objectives, opponent,
resources, and impact of the effort are the burden of executive agency.
To shrug this responsibility is not only foolhardy; using any common
reference, it is immoral.
Thus…a moral and ethical evaluation of
self-interest and the incompatible interest prior to conflict provides
a stable intellectual-philosophical base for operations. 5. Obtaining an immoral or unethical objective is failure.
Ideas generate power. Readily understood ideas attract followers. Much
like "open-source" software development, the open exchange of ideas
provides exponential possibilities for developing and improving concepts.
Behaviors that are reinforced by success generate passion for the underlying ideas that suggest those behaviors. Success is perceived as validation and will be followed with investment and enthusiastic action, eventually resulting in an accumulation of power.
The stable intellectual-philosophical base is an intangible center of
power.[xvi] Quantification and comparison of value
is readily understood. There is no guarantee that right will prevail. Might, as a product of resources and compelling ideas, usually does. Much power can be generated by flawed principles behind virtuous intent supported by enthusiastic effort. Since conflict can result in permanent
damage or destruction on many levels, one must be aware that using might
in pursuit of unjustified (morally, philosophically, ethically unsupportable)
self-interest, leaves one in danger of damaging something superior in
favor of something inferior. Nazi Germany, the October Revolution, and
the socialist welfare state are examples of terrible failure following
initial success of misguided ideals from virtuous intent. Obviously, there is a moral or ethical component to such comparisons
and divergent cultures will produce completely incompatible perceptions of moral and ethical self-interest and develop strategies to promote
separate incompatible realities. But such moral/ethical imprecision
is not an excuse for the outcome of conflict unless every effort was
made in the pre-conflict stage to assure that the outcome is morally/ethically
supportable in retrospect. When the outcome of conflict is not morally/ethically
viable, the lack of a stable intellectual base decreases predictability.
Note that the conflict that reverses an initial success is likely to be exponentially more expensive than the conflict that establishes that success. Thus pursuing faulty objectives delays establishment of superior objectives at an exponentially higher cost. Not only does a careful
evaluation provide the platform for executing strategy, it minimizes
the probability of expending massive resources on an effort to create
conditions that will be under constant attack in an environment with
a moral/ethical component to it. Superior ideas are destined to propagate
within a population that is sophisticated enough to receive them; inferior
ideas are destined to fail within the same construct. Thus, the temporary
success of an inferior effort often becomes an exponential inverse projection
of the moral/ethical condition it supplants. The spectrum of this inverse
projection can range from "loss of credibility" on a personal scale
to the outcome of WWII on a global scale. Since the propagation
and adoption of inferior principles ultimately increases the cost to
emplace a doomed system … obtaining an immoral
or unethical objective is failure. 6. The purpose of strategy is to eliminate the motivation to execute a strategy in pursuit of an incompatible objective. Conflict involving humans starts with mental activity
and always can be traced back to a conscious or unconscious decision
to pursue a particular objective. A state of tension is maintained as
long as there is mental activity that results in competitive motivations.
Conflict is averted or ended only when one competitor or the other abandons a strategy that leads to conflict. As John Boyd said, "Machines don’t fight wars, terrain doesn’t fight wars, weather doesn’t fight wars. Humans fight wars. You have to get into the minds of humans. That’s where wars are won." The distance between the present reality and the desired reality or vision provides the requirement for a strategy. Strategy is the imagined path toward the objective. Unlike plotting a trip on a map though, strategy makes allowances for dynamic variances in conditions. Strategy is timing the trip to avoid rush hour conditions
and road construction delays while still meeting a prescribed set of
conditions for arrival.
Well conceived and executed strategy is elegant and efficient. It capitalizes
on natural and artificial elements to shape the mental activity of the
opponent to remove the mental state that set the competing objective.
Since this effort is primarily the transmission of ideas, strategy is a process of ideas and actions that send a valuation-cost message meant to bend the opponent values, change objectives, evaporate motivation and render resistance pointless.
Belisarius attempted to restrain his Byzantine troops from pursuing
and routing a retreating Persian force explaining that: "true victory lay in compelling one’s opponent to abandon his purpose, with the least possible loss to one’s self."[xvii] In this
simple statement he demonstrates an understanding of both the purpose
and the cost of conflict.
It is not what one thinks, but how one thinks that determines the outcome
of conflict.[xviii] That is to say, it is not
the values and filters that influence us to select objectives that determine
our course of action. While the link of moral-ethical imperatives to
strategy and tactics must be respected, it is our application of experience
in strategy and tactics that influences our actions and that determines
the outcome. Instinctive reaction is rarely as effective as deliberative
or prescient interdiction. If conflict is a collision between strategies/projects,
then resolution lies in the future and not in the present. Successful
tactics inhibit the opponent "possible futures" that prohibit the establishment
of the objective reality. If one consistently applies successful
tactics, some form of the objective reality is eventually established.
A consistently defeated opponent will usually lose motivation or run
short of resources.
Belisarius understood and demonstrated, perhaps better than any other
military strategist, that the purpose of strategy is not to fight but to win. Victory is probable when the opponent loses the motivation to resist even if the ability to resist remains. It is important to note that it is not the winner but the loser that decides when conflict is over. Thus…The purpose of strategy is to eliminate the opposing motivation
to execute a strategy in pursuit of an incompatible objective. 7. Perfect strategy achieves moral and ethical objectives
without conflict.
Conflict is unavoidable, but is worth minimizing. The pre-conflict elimination of motivation and resistance is not only possible, but after
considering the cost, virtuous in light of its economy. In political,
intellectual, emotional or economic struggles, the uncontested success
of superior ideas, principles, behaviors and products is less traumatic
and wasteful than the eventual emergence of a deserving victor in the
wake of a political intellectual, emotional or economic bloodbath.
It is rational to seek an objective at the lowest possible cost. Conflict increases the cost of pursuing value or interest and delays or prohibits the accomplishment of objectives. Rational beings tend to seek
ways to bypass resistance and avoid unnecessary investment. Further,
since conflict is investment, the cost of conflict potentially could
occult the value of the objective, which eliminates motivation and changes
the priority or value assigned to a particular objective.
The execution of strategy does not necessitate conflict. The very point
of strategy can be to avoid conflict and thus avoid unnecessary cost.
Wanton destruction or damage of virtue or value is irrational, wasteful
and thus, immoral because it denies a competing objective without supporting
a superior objective. Failing to obtain an objective without conflict is a product of faulty strategy. The best way to prevent conflict is
to think strategically[xix]. The creation of a
moral-ethical end state without incurring extra cost through conflict
constitutes the creation of value at the absolute minimum cost. Thus…Perfect
strategy achieves moral and ethical objectives without conflict. 8. To prevent conflict, change the adversarial perception before your opponent realizes there is an incompatible objective.
Cultures, politics and relationships are constantly evolving. Identification
of trends, forethought and ultimately foresight provide the potential
to avert conflict even when objectives are initially polarized. Attempts to manipulate the future demand an understanding of the past and the present. Understanding the past, richly detailed by historians, is easy
when compared to understanding the present. The most important events
of history may be obscure when viewed in the present and massive when
viewed in the context of history. Small events and large contribute
to shifts in culture. Since culture is naturally evolving, a timely strategy to change culture, the perception of value, and cost, or at least the perception of cost, is the first opportunity to avert conflict or shape the conditions for success. This is why Sun Tzu placed so much influence on understanding the opponent. Understanding the perception and intent of your opponent will suggest the best way shape his mental state which is the first stage to destroying motivation. The evaporation
of motivation discourages investment. Well placed efforts to eliminate
competitive motivations can preclude conflict. Thus…To prevent conflict, change the adversarial perception before your opponent realizes there is an incompatible objective. 9. The achievement of moral and ethical objectives by
low-level conflict is preferable to high-level conflict.
However desirable, pre-conflict resolution is uncommon. Typically, ideas,
principles, products and politics are imperfect and thus subject to
evolutionary and revolutionary improvement(s). The competition of/in
the arena motivates improvement that floats the eventual survivor to
the top of the competitive heap.
Commitment to an objective, the formulation of strategy and the employment
of tactics are the ignition sequence for conflict. Conflict initiates
at the point that one strategy is blocked by the execution of an opposing
strategy. This occurs at many levels, from internal struggles between
personal priorities to international geopolitical competition. Conflict does not by nature require any level of hostility or brutality; conflict between two people may be settled using immediate capitulation and kind words or may be settled by assault/self-defense "to-the-death". Conflict between nations may be resolved by negotiation followed by treaty, or bloody conflict until one side surrenders. Obviously, as in the case
for pre-conflict resolution, the achievement of a desired reality at
the lowest price increases value. Escalation implies additional
cost and requires constant comparison and active-reactive strategy to
minimize cost. Thus…The achievement of moral and ethical objectives by low-level conflict is preferable to high-level conflict. 10. Failing to obtain a moral ethical objective in high-level
conflict is a double failure.
Since there is an implicit failure in obtaining an immoral or unethical objective, there is also an implicit failure in allowing an immoral or unethical reality to block or supplant a moral or ethical objective state. Using overt conflict to obtain moral and ethical objectives is
necessary to prevent the achievement of immoral or unethical objectives
that could otherwise be established in the vacuum of complacency/détente.
"Let none falter, who thinks he is right" - Abraham Lincoln.
Further, failure to execute pre-conflict resolution through the creative manipulation of the information sphere to create understanding and resolve the perception of the two entities into a common reality is a failure.
This means that as far as the value in question justifies, conflict
must be escalated until resolution is made through the elimination of
motivation in one of the entities. Surrendering to an inferior reality
is both a failure of strategy and a failure of tactics. Thus…Failing to obtain a moral ethical objective in high-level conflict is a double failure. 11. The philosophical-intellectual base of operations
is undermined by violation of the motivating objective moral-ethical
imperative during conflict. As stated before, conflict is driven by ideas and values and occurs at the intersection of strategies that are products of conscious and subconscious thought. The philosophical-intellectual concepts that are
the compelling filter for setting objectives must be consistently applied
across motivation, strategy and into the tactical execution. If the philosophical-intellectual base is at risk of being exposed as faulty-inferior, the potential value of the objective is at risk of being undermined and motivation will evaporate. For whoever habitually suppresses truth in the interests of tact will produce a deformity from his womb of thought.[xx] The connection between strategy and tactics must be clearly understood
and applied in execution. Hypocrisy is the decoupling of execution from the philosophical intellectual base. Hypocrisy is an internal conflict between a professed philosophical-intellectual motivation and a strategy or tactic. While Machiavelli proposes that there are times when the end justifies the means, he does so in the context of proposing that his audience seeks to establish benevolent monarchy[xxi].
His work is replete with principles meant to garner popular respect
and affection if possible. Richard III of England is thought to have
been generally popular during his reign, but the ruling classes in England
had expectations of honor within the court, and Richard’s lack of scruples
placed him at odds with the guiding moral-ethical imperative of the
times. Ultimately, his unprincipled and bloody ascendancy to the throne provided his enemies with the reasons and support to generate the forces of his deposal, and history all but forgets the benign details of his reign. When there is disconnection of imperative from the means, it amounts to a conflict with ones own purposes. All too often, there will be a party willing to take sides against you in a conflict with yourself. The opponent will cite the moral-ethical gap as symptomatic of a faulty-inferior moral-ethical value set. The philosophical-intellectual base is
destabilized with respect to the opposing base. Thus…The philosophical-intellectual
base of operations is undermined by violation of the motivating objective
moral-ethical imperative during conflict. 12. When conflict is warranted and engagement becomes
probable, the probability of success is exponentially increased by full
preparation for the contact. In conflict, every effort should be made to plan each contact with the opponent. While preparation for contact can be thought of as preparing a trap, a trap is not necessarily malicious.
As a wayward raccoon might be trapped and relocated for it’s own health
after conflicting with the objective values of a community, strategy
that pulls the opponent in close and then takes advantage of maneuver
and surprise provides a higher probability of success than a protracted
frontal assault. The essence of the trap is the unanticipated action that is so swift that it cannot be outmaneuvered and so decisive that it cannot be repelled. The action of the trap relies on anticipating or channeling the maneuver of the opponent into an environment composed of elements and restrictions that are not discernable to his casual inspection. When the elements of the trap are unleashed, the recognition
of their existence constitutes a state of cognitive dissonance. Cognitive
dissonance is the realization that a relevant perception has been disproved;
a new reality is emerging and thus current strategy may be completely
inappropriate. Surprise is perhaps the best acknowledged principle
of conflict. Surprise is psychological and has direct impact on the opponent. Most principles of war are centered around the environment, logistics, and utilization of resources. Surprise typically uses what
the opponent doesn’t know as a psychological weapon. The opponent’s
realization that his strategy may be inappropriate is often more significant
than the actual advantage of maneuver gained by surprise. As the opponent
desparately tries to comprehend rapid changes, he must depart from the
original plan and develop and execute strategy on the fly. Doubt and
uncertainty tug at every course of action; generate fear of failure
and foster indecisiveness. Because surprise leverages what is unexpected
in the mind of the opponent, it maneuvers against weakness. Because
surprise reaches directly into the mind of the opponent, it has great
potential to induce capitulation.
Surprise is so effective as a weapon that a wise agent must be vigilant to avoid being surprised and maintain preparations to deal with surprise. In classic strategy and finance, these preparations
are referred to as reserves. Avoiding surprise and using surprise to
one’s advantage are the essence of preparing for contact. Every effort
to avoid traps and surprises will result in a savings of investment
across the span of conflict. Pulling the opponent in close, when examined in
the construct of "fair play" introduces a common conundrum. Within popular Western culture, the practice of spying and deceitful political maneuvering are considered dishonest. Yet in classical Greek and Oriental studies, are considered to be central to avoiding conflict. Espionage provides the best possible understanding of the present reality, which is the basis of all possible future realities. It may also disclose the opposing
strategy, which can then be frustrated with minimal effort to maximum
effect. Deceitful, covert or clandestine maneuver simply keeps the opponent
from doing the same.[xxiii] The global view of a resource-constrained world
with 6 billion competing agents makes the waste from conflict immoral
except when unavoidable. Conflict by virtue of its waste, diverts resources
away from the collective standard of living. Conflict prohibits
stability, which is key to the encouragement of economic investment
and growth. Thus so long as outcome meets the moral-ethical imperative,
averting conflict between irreconcilable doctrines and ideologies is
of demonstrable virtue. That which may be dishonorable or distasteful
to us in our private or personal relationships may be fully warranted
in matters of state where ideology serves survival. Like averting conflict, ending conflict quickly
is principled around the containment of investment. Prepare for each
conflict in the context of how the opponent will be constrained or inspired
by his own moral-ethical imperative. Success can be accelerated if the
opponent is forced to resolve internal conflict before focusing resources
to engage in the primary effort. This is easily explained as an effort to make the opponent violate Principle 11. Examine the
opposing philosophical-intellectual base and moral-ethical imperative
to identify faults and credibility gaps and that can be used to separate
the opponent from his objective and shatter motivation. In low-level
conflict, traps are merely well constructed argument, illustration and
negotiation. Thus…When conflict is warranted and engagement becomes
probable, the probability of success is exponentially increased by full
preparation for the contact.
Michael Breeden
is an active duty Air Force Chief Master Sergeant at the Pentagon.
(HQ/AF special operations division). His primary work is development
of the Air Force ground warriors known as Battlefield Airmen.
This is his first contribution to Defense and the National Interest.
E-mail comments to Chief Breeden at
ironcross11@earthlink.net. Endnotes: [i]John Boyd, Strategic Game
of Interaction and Isolation Slide 14 [ii]Thus the expression "so
mad he couldn’t think straight." [iii]Value and self-interest:
things that warrant investment or are deserved by action, investment
or right. [iv]Starship Troopers, Robert
Heinlein, 1959, G.P. Putnam and Sons [v][v]A Theory of Human Motivation, by
Abraham Maslow, Psychological Review 1943, Maslow framed needs as
the origin of human motivation, abandoning animal behavior theories
of Freud and B.F. Skinner. [vi]Both the essentials (air, water, food, shelter),
or luxuries such as jewelry are tangibles) [vii]John Boyd, Strategic Game of Interaction
and Isolation [viii]Want might be restated as "value what
they value" [ix]Alexander Hamilton, Federalist
Papers, Number 6 [x]E.g., He’s heavily involved in the construction
project. [xi]E.g., I project that we can increase profits
by shipping in plastic instead of paper. [xii]Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand, Random House,
1957 [xiii]Machiavelli, The Prince [xiv]Robert D. Kaplan Warrior Politics,
Chapter 5. [xv]Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince
[xvi]John Boyd, Patterns of Conflict [xvii]Strategy, B.H. Liddell Hart, Frederick
A. Preager, Inc. Publisher [xviii]See Robert D. Kaplan’s
Warrior Politics, Chapter 1. [xix]SunTzu, The Art of War [xx] B.H. Liddell Hart, Strategy,
Second revised edition, 1954, Preager, NYC [xxi] The Prince was
intended as a tribute to the ruling Medici family in an attempt to return
to their good graces. Literally, a Machiavellian strategy to shape the
perspective of the ruling family… [xxii] B.H. Liddell Hart,
Strategy, Second revised edition, 1954, Preager, NYC [xxiii] John Boyd, Strategic
Game of Interaction and Isolation |
Measure
Measure
Keep in touch!