Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Allegiance in Civil Wars
Small Wars Journal has a thought-provoking post by Michael Cummings that takes issue with something I have often argued:
[W]hen it comes to counter-insurgency, military theorists continue to ignore humanity’s underlying irrationality. Consider Andrew Exum’s article in the Daily Beast:
“Populations, in civil wars, make cold-blooded calculations about their self-interest. If forced to choose sides in a civil war—and they will resist making that choice for as long as possible, for understandable reasons—they will side with the faction they assess to be the one most likely to win.”
I dub this the “Chicago School of Counter-Insurgency”, the idea that in warfare--with death and subjugation on the line--mankind’s rationality trumps his unconscious thoughts and emotions. ...
We cannot pretend that killing people won’t cause emotional reactions. We cannot pretend that in a war zone people always act rationally, because people don’t. As a counter-insurgent, we must balance our views of insurgents and the population as both rational and emotional actors.
Cummings has a point, of course. But what Cummings calls the Chicago School would better be described as the New Haven School. For a long time, the scholarly literature on civil wars discussed political allegiance in civil wars as primarily exogenous. In 2006, though, a scholar at Yale named Stathis Kalyvas published a book called The Logic of Violence in Civil War
I heard Steve Biddle describe the state of civil wars scholarship well last summer when he said that what Kalyvas and his work did was to effectively swing the literature from the all the way from the exogenous end of the spectrum to all the way over to the endogenous end. As more work is done, Steve said (and I agree with him), the literature would likely end up somewhere in the middle. Or right back where it started, when Thucydides noted man is motivated to go to war by fear, honor, and interest -- only one of which is covered in most economics textbooks. For now, I have yet to read a good corrective to Kalyvas that would lead me to radically change my own views about popular behavior in civil wars in general.
(Cummings, alas, goes on to argue that "foreign occupation triggers suicide attacks." Let's all agree not to tell Daveed Gartenstein-Ross.)
***
The subtitle given to the Cummings article on the Small Wars Journal webpage was "It's time to stop listening to CNAS." So ... no Christmas card from Small Wars Journal this year?
Update: the original Michael Cummings post was here.
I'm not finished with
I'm not finished with Kalyvas's book yet, but doesn't his theory only focus upon a narrow subset of war - civil wars where belligerents were subject to the same sovereign before hostilities arise and who engage in violence against non-combatants during conflict? If so, is it prudent to extrapolate his views from that narrow subset into wider conclusions about war in general?
Interesting post, whilst i
Interesting post, whilst i won't pretend to claim what we suffered here in N.Ireland was a civil war, I think its fair to say, such lines were indeed drawn. What delineated those lines? I think we all know that. Whilst some will claim religion was the motivating factor, in our little statelet history dictates that religion is interchangeable with nationality - which is where the essence of the conflict lay. I don't think im wrong to suggest that class also had a part to play, not just in that catholics had a shaky place in the north, but when considering where the main protagonists drew their numbers from, very often you'd find their ranks were swelled from the kids in terraced housing, as opposed to those who lived up driveways in South Belfast. It was not fear that caused men to raise their arm, it was something more sinister - indoctrination - which was the result of something that could be directly traced back to a centuries old British policy, first tried in Ireland and exported elsewhere. The 'us' and 'them'.
I love this clarification of
I love this clarification of the issue between exogenous and endogenous factors. As my last paragraph said, I think we need to view the population as a balance between rationality and emotion, or external and internal factors. I haven't read Kalyvas' book (another to add to the reading list), but it sounds like he also takes a nuanced view of violence, which is my main argument.
As for the Pape reference, I hadn't looked up the counters to his argument. Nevertheless, I think the point that people hate foreigners invading their country is a good rule of thumb.
Thanks for the updates though.
As a proud alum, I'll note -
As a proud alum, I'll note - as I did on "On Violence" - that as both a former student and faculty member there, Kalyvas can be considered a "Chicago Boy." And while there are or were many Chicago Schools - Economics, Sociology, Literary Criticism, to name three - it's my personal opinion that "New Haven School" doesn't roll off the tongue quite so easily.
ADTS
In a way, Kalyvas presents a
In a way, Kalyvas presents a corrective to his own theory. He makes the disclaimer that his theory doesn't operate where civil wars become "eliminationist," i.e. in situations where defection is impossible. (Which is a bit like saying "my theory doesn't operate where it doesn't operate.") But in making that disclaimer he acknowledges the existence of a whole set of "eliminationist" civil wars where exogenous allegiances/identities might better explain patterns of violence than his own theory. Iraq and Lebanon at particular times and places might offer good case studies of "eliminationist" civil wars where Kalyvas's theory fails.
Exum and CNAS should
Exum and CNAS should apologize to the American people and the families of dead or wounded servicemen.
They had a half-ass theory about how to conduct COIN, whispered to the Administrations to implement their half-ass theory, and got countless kids dead because of their half-ass theory.
Col. Gentile was right all along. These numbskulls should close down shop and start blogging about permaculture and explain how humanure/dry toilets can not only benefit Haiti but the world.
As an African, I haven't seen
As an African, I haven't seen a civil war in Africa (and there have been many) that wasn't fought on an ethnic or religious basis (both are interchangeable). Decisions are made here once hostilities start - you side with members of your tribe / coreligionists.
I suspect the same happens elsewhere in the World. Mankind is essentially tribal, we follow the herd. What moves the herd is seldom rational or calculated in advance.
Anyway what happens in Africa doesn't really matter when you are in the business of propounding a grand theory of everything.
Anyone that has been to
Anyone that has been to Lookout Mountain and saw the view of Moccasin Bend ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zghl24iPoF0 ) could not exclude Civil War from their thoughts.
If you understand how and why people take academic positions, then you understand the basis of civil wars. You can hear it in the chatter up thread. How a people express that war has a lot to do with cultural traditions. Somewhere in that is how the message is communicated and accepted.
America has a civil war every four years. Guess it is all about how war is defined.
SoS is trying to start a war in the ME. She rocks the boat but she does not have to mop up the mess. She does not even get her nails scuffed, but she will be the first to call for UN arms controls well after Besty is grazing in Libya. Some of Saul Alinsky must have stayed with that one. People that pound on hornet nets with a hammer have proven that they have a screw loose upstairs or are too lost behind the belt way, Chicago schooled.
Humanure Handbook (google it) on December 22, 2011 - 1:41am
I am not defending COIN. Not all the war dead are due to a single strategy, America had many strategies. The Trade Towers could not be ignored, AQ could only have had that in their plans. The US still has not learned how to engage these people. The blame is on what we have not been willing to learn, rather than on the strategies tried.
Terrorism is the devils dance, one partner asks the other. You can turn it into a ball room event and televise it so it becomes important or you can put it on your card with the other one timers. Add in politicians and business people and the temptation to have attention makes it the State's Dinner, the terrorist are even on the invitation list. AQ understands better than America does, they are using our weaknesses as their strength.
One artifact of how politicians respond, America is becoming a police state and we are doing it for our own security. Security puts money in the economy and people to work, right? Go figure and AQ wins, there is temptation in opportunity.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/20/nation/la-na-terror-checkpoints-...
Americans need to go about their business. AQ is not going to go away, but when they don't have anyone to dance with they become less important.
Maybe I have not given
Maybe I have not given Hillary credit.
Getting people stirred up in the ME and the Arab Spring is a balance to AQ. It has the most reward and also the most risk. Bush wanted to bring democracy to Iraq. Problem is history is full of examples of the US giving our opposition the victory. The strategy can bring the highest cost, as Americans have found out. If the objective is to justify foreign aid and stimulus, then it is all win-win.
People have a lot of variables in a conflict that are hard to predict.
It is lose-lose for the people that do not have a government pension.
I'm confused by the "alas"
I'm confused by the "alas" bit of the sentence about Cummings' belief that foreign occupation contributes to suicide bombing.
Congrats, CNAS, you're almost
Congrats, CNAS, you're almost there. People will side with the faction they assess to be the one most likely to win... and you can influence their assessment by killing anyone who sides with the enemy and burning down their houses.
Isn't there a fundamental
Isn't there a fundamental problem in considering the topic of 'Civil War' as though it is an homogenous issue with universal (historic, cultural & geographic) application? Looking for constants to apply to a conflict has attraction but is it a delusion? Worth looking for but perhaps it is better to view each conflict in it's own context and specific elements?
I'm with the Humanure
I'm with the Humanure Handbook (google it).
Where's that official CNAS apology?
Andrew: Mike's original post
Andrew:
Mike's original post on SWJ that was later removed simply paraphrased the gist of Cummings's argument, yet you took it personally with your quip about christmas cards and cnas.
Reductionist thinking on
Reductionist thinking on Rational Choice
The original post on On Violence has some good points, but it presents a semi-reductionist account of rational choice theory (RCT), or at least how it is used by those of us who aren't neo-classical economists.
The narrow version of RCT – which is a favorite in neo-classical economics – assumes that reality is perceived correctly and fully by the individual, that only material incentives matter, and individuals explicitly maximize their objective utility through accurate calculations of costs and benefits. The wide version of RCT, preferred by sociologists, assumes “bounded rationality.” The late great Herbert Simon explains: “[T]he capacity of the human mind for formulating and solving complex problems is very small compared with the size of the problems whose solution is required for objectively rational behavior in the real world – or even for a reasonable approximation to such objective rationality.” I am working on a paper addressing this in the context of insurgency and counterinsurgency in Helmand, adapted from a report I did over there.
Not sure you know it or not,
Not sure you know it or not, ya'll are setting up a set of heuristics to make sense out of a complex problem. Heuristics are one of the reasons that Americans get in trouble in conflicts, we tend to project solutions based on who we are. It is also the reason America gets dumb and finds the most expensive solution. You can add in all the diversity that you want and what you end up with is not being able to make a decision.
The most dangerous person on earth is not a terrorist, it is the guy that went to Harvard and thinks he knows and doesn't. Add in a bureaucracy of the same and you have lemmings.
AQ is wagging the dog and they have Washington jumping. It is not about fear of terrorists, it is about the fear of self important people looking bad.
You decode that and you have AQ's play book.
BTW....A MANPAD buy back with a cost of $40M on top of the $20M study to determine that the MANPADs got lost???? Only that could have come from the Chicago School. Damn, you are in the middle of f'ing Africa for Pete's sake. Drug cartels have landing strips in Mali. You would be better off trying to buy back all the crack cocaine on the South side of the brain camp. People that think they know are dangerous. Maybe the NFZ was not such a great idea? Nope, that would make someone look bad.
He's referring of course to
He's referring of course to the Civil War in the Defense/Military/Beltway/Wonk/Blogosphere over COIN....which is in part over coin$.
By the time this academic pissing contest over the last 10 years is over, no one will want to hear another word about it.
Lessons whatever they are lost, Mission Accomplished.
Elf, think you are right.
Elf, think you are right. This one is going to make a lot of careers, it already has.
Funny we are now talking about civil wars. Syria has a good chance of heading that direction. Egypt is starting to look more like anarchy than democracy. I do not think the Egyptian military wants to run the government, it just wants to maintain influence. Iraq will be perpetual stone throwing contest. The army of American diplomats being built will add balance in Iraq.
Coin is not a bad concept, it will be a while before we all forget how much it costs before it comes back. It sure is a foreign aid extravaganza. If someone is out there that got pictures of the pallets of $100 bills trucked in to pay off the Sons of Iraq, I think it would make a good war image. Be right up their will little girls running from their napalmed Vietnamese village. Money is the healing salve.
It is still going on and now we are trying to figure out which side to take in the upcoming events.
It just amazes me that we pay good money for all this. All borrowed from the Chinese.
Bernie Madoff must laugh himself to sleep.
BTW, One of the things I will remember about The Obama Presidency is that America's economy tanked and he packed his bags and left to improve America's image abroad. Where is the economy and where is the image? At least this year December 24th Obama is not giving Fannie and Freddie a blank check from the US taxpayer for a Christmas present. It was the gift that kept on giving. Twelve million in bonuses and counting.
I want something to be positive about. Where is all the hope now?
It's a win win for everyone,
It's a win win for everyone, maybe not for the dead or wounded, but for everyone.
Sure we wasted billions, thousands died, but
Exum ended up marrying a hot wife.
We can get resupplied by a drone now, but still no spank mags.
And hot lesbians in the Navy can play hide and seek with their tongues.
I will draw the line though, if the Navy let's a sleazy looking tattooed master chief french kiss a teenage Asian boy,
aside from that post-DADT peace time military should be fun.
All in all everybody made out like bandits because of the last 10 yrs.
Great job, CNAS !!! YOU rock !
Changing gears. Its a small
Changing gears.
Its a small world guys. Not sure about you, but I have done business, worked with, spoken to, visited, or have good friends from just all the places mentioned. Been a good ride.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZESNmLNaZU
Merry Christmas. The years are getting better.
What is really funny about
What is really funny about this is that there's no effort to quantify cultural expression of the human capacity for empathetic identification with goup values and ideals. It gets treated in a binary manner to make the lives of theorizing academics easier. Those who miscalculate individual versus group self-interest and that self-interested values are not universal (riches vs going to heaven) are constantly blind-sided by kamakazi tactics and Zulus washing their spears.
Add your comment